Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01388/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01388-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDO MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BREWER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01388-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

 

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint filed

November 18, 2005.

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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 granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:05-cv-01388-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison

(PVSP) where plaintiff is incarcerated. Plaintiff names Correctional Officers Brewer, Cantu,

Fernandez, Negrete, and Sergeant Quiriarte as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and

injunctive relief. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are verybrief. Plaintiff alleges that on December 22, 2003, he received

“inadequate medical care” from defendant Brewer which resulted in long term injury.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2004, defendant Cantu moved him to a cell with a gang

member, ignoring his medical chrono. Plaintiff alleges he was attacked by the gang member.

Plaintiff alleges that on August 28, 2004, defendant Fernandez used another inmate to attack

Case 1:05-cv-01388-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

him and on October 30, 2004 defendant Negrete forced him into a gang member’s cell.

Plaintiff contends that on November 7, 2004, he fell from his top bunk. He contends that

Sergeant Quiriarte ignored his medical chrono which required him to have a lower bunk. He argues

that Sergeant Quiriarte is responsible for his fall because he ignored the medical chrono. 

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

1. Medical Care

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate

indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in

a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may

be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,”

or in the manner “in which prison physicians provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment,

the delay must have led to further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd.

of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a finding that the named defendants acted with

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical need. “Deliberate indifference is a high legal

standard.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be

aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

exists,’ but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at

837). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not

Case 1:05-cv-01388-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of

Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

Plaintiff’s allegation that he received “inadequate medical care” and that defendant Quiriarte

ignored his medical chrono, at most suggest negligence and that plaintiff disagreed with the

treatment he received. Neither negligence nor plaintiff’s disagreement with the treatment provided

support a claim for relief under section 1983. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.

1986); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981); Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories,

622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. The Court will provide

plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to provide more detail about his medical

claims. However, plaintiff must keep the high standard of the Eighth Amendment in mind in

deciding whether to do so. 

2. Failure to Protect Plaintiff

Plaintiff also makes allegations that defendants put him in danger by placing him in cells with

gang members. These allegations are also insufficient to state a claim under theEighth Amendment.

Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse.

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1250-51; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). To establish

a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent

to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834. The deliberate

indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation

must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834(citing Wilson

v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must “know of and disregard an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

In the instant action, plaintiff alleges only that defendants Cantu, Fernandez and Negrete put

him in danger by placing him with gang members. Plaintiff’s allegations are so brief and conclusory

that the court is unable to determine whether or not plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim

for relief. In order to state a cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff’s

allegations must demonstrate that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a serious threat

to plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the defendants had reason to believe that

Case 1:05-cv-01388-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

plaintiff was in danger. The fact that plaintiff’s cell mate was a gang member, alone is not sufficient

unless defendants knew of the risk to plaintiff and were deliberately indifferent to that risk. The

court finds that plaintiff has not stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against any of the

named defendants. The court will provide plaintiff one opportunity to amend his complaint, in the

event that plaintiff believes, in good faith, that he has a cognizable claim for relief under section

1983.

 D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not state any claims upon which relief may be

granted under section 1983. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in this order. 

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions complained

of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d

227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

Case 1:05-cv-01388-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01388-AWI-DLB Document 13 Filed 09/18/06 Page 6 of 6