Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07788/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07788-0/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. GODINEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-07788-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Docket Nos. 1, 4

I. INTRODUCTION

Adrian Hunter, a prisoner currently housed at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis 

Obispo, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before 

the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. His motion for appointment of counsel also is 

before the Court for review.

II. BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges the following about an incident that occurred at Salinas Valley State 

Prison, where Mr. Hunter was then housed: When a fight broke out near the telephones on 

October 29, 2017, Mr. Hunter left the area and sat down by the shower. Correctional officer (C/O) 

Godinez “went towards the fight” and C/O Lieathe “walked toward [Mr. Hunter] angry with his 

can of O.C. and pointed it straight at [Mr. Hunter’s] face and said are you up in this?” Docket No. 

1 at 4. The prayer for relief asks that C/O Lieathe “be put up on charges of attempt assault of use 

of force” and that Mr. Hunter be awarded damages. Id. (errors in source)

III. DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

Case 3:18-cv-07788-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/16/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 

claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). 

Even if § 1915A(a) screening is not called for because relief is not sought from a governmental 

entity, officer or employee, the court may review a complaint filed in forma pauperis to fulfill its 

duty under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to dismiss the case if it is frivolous or malicious or fails to state 

a claim on which relief may be granted. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

An Eighth Amendment violation may occur when prison officials “maliciously and 

sadistically use force to cause harm, but “not every malevolent touch by a prison guard or official 

gives rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “The 

Eighth Amendment's prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual’ punishments necessarily excludes from 

constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of 

a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

Verbal harassment alone is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. 

Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Shakur v. 

Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008); Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99 (8th Cir. 

1986) (“mere words, without more, do not invade a federally protected right”); cf. Watison v. 

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (“‘the exchange of verbal insults between inmates 

and guards is a constant, daily ritual observed in this nation's prisons’ of which ‘we do not 

approve,’ but which do not violate the Eighth Amendment.”). Allegations of mere threats also are 

not cognizable under § 1983. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (mere threat 

does not amount to constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked threat was for purpose of 

denying access to courts compel contrary result). 

Case 3:18-cv-07788-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/16/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Even with liberal construction, the complaint does not state a claim for a violation of Mr. 

Hunter’s constitutional rights. The complaint indicates that C/O Lieathe pointed a can of pepper 

spray at Mr. Hunter, but did not actually discharge any pepper spray from that can. Merely 

pointing a can of pepper spray at a person does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The 

fact that C/O Lieathe made a comment that Mr. Hunter apparently interprets as a threat does not 

change things because mere words do not amount to a constitutional violation. A claim is not 

stated against C/O Lieathe. A claim also is not stated against the other defendant, C/O Godinez, 

who is not alleged to have done anything other than to go towards the fight in an area from which 

Mr. Hunter had just departed. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

Mr. Hunter may file an amended complaint in which he alleges additional facts, if he has 

any, to suggest that the event was more than mere threatening words from one correctional officer 

or that the two correctional officers did something else to violate his constitutional rights. Mr. 

Hunter is cautioned that he must be careful to allege facts showing the basis for liability for each 

individual defendant in his amended complaint. He should not refer to them as a group (e.g., “the 

defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each of them to 

his claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his 

constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (liability may be 

imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show that defendant 

proximately caused deprivation of federally protected right).

Mr. Hunter has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A 

district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an 

indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Exceptional circumstances are not

present at this time because Mr. Hunter has not yet submitted a pleading that states a claim, let 

alone shows any likelihood of success on the merits. Mr. Hunter’s request for appointment of 

Case 3:18-cv-07788-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/16/19 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

counsel to represent him in this action is DENIED. Docket No. 4.

IV. CONCLUSION

The complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim upon which relief may be granted. Leave to 

amend is granted so that Mr. Hunter may attempt to allege the violation of his constitutional rights 

in an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be filed no later than May 17, 2019, and 

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED 

COMPLAINT on the first page. Mr. Hunter is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a 

complete statement of his claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for 

any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) 

Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action.

Mr. Hunter’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 4.

Mr. Hunter is reminded that he must write the following case name and case number on the 

first page of every document he files in this action: Hunter v. Godinez, No. 18-cv-7788 EMC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07788-EMC Document 14 Filed 04/16/19 Page 4 of 4