Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00671-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Plaintiff filed the first page of his application on April 9, 2007. Plaintiff filed the second 1

page of his application and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement on April 18,

2007.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL WINFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0671 FCD DAD P

vs.

WHITE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1

Plaintiff has also filed an amended complaint. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned

magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

Case 2:07-cv-00671-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651

F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421 (1969).

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). 

Case 2:07-cv-00671-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

“A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Supervisory

personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory

of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the

causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. 

See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441

(9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979).

In plaintiff’s amended complaint, he identifies as defendants Judge Chris Jackson

and Michael Jaffee, Chief Psychiatrist at CSP-Sacramento. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants

have forcibly kept him on psycho-tropic medicine in violation of the Eighth Amendment and

Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that the medicine causes him to suffer and amounts to

mental murder. Plaintiff seeks five million dollars in damages from the defendants.

This court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice to

filing a new action after plaintiff exhausts administrative remedies. Under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”),“[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions

under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail,

prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion requirement “applies to all inmate suits

about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether

they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal of an

action. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d

1198, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). On plaintiff’s original complaint form, Question

II.B. asks “Have you filed a grievance concerning the facts relating to this complaint?” Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00671-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

has checked the “No” box. In the space provided for the plaintiff to answer why not, plaintiff

wrote: “it does not do any good here in this prison.” In plaintiff’s amended complaint, he has not

alleged that he exhausted his administrative remedies or that his concession of a failure to

exhaust in his original complaint was erroneous. If a court concludes, as it does here, that a

prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies, “the proper remedy is dismissal of the claim

without prejudice.” Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120. Accordingly, this court will recommend that this

action be dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff is informed that if he decides to file a new action, he should not include

this case number on the new complaint. In addition, the new complaint should be accompanied

by a new application to proceed in forma pauperis that is up-to-date and properly completed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis filed on April 9, 2007 and

April 18, 2007 be denied; and

2. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies before bringing the action.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 23, 2007.

DAD:9

winf0671.efr

Case 2:07-cv-00671-FCD-DAD Document 7 Filed 04/23/07 Page 4 of 4