Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01904-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINCY SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. CABRERA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01904-SKO PC

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER

SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 

First Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Quincy Sims, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 21, 2012. 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. 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). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

1

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 04/10/13 Page 1 of 5
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

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are not required to

indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler,

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to survive

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that

a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572

F.3d at 969.

II. Discussion

A. Allegations

Plaintiff, who is currentlyincarcerated at Kern ValleyState Prison (KVSP), bringsthis action

against Captain M. Cabrera and Appeals Coordinator B. Da Viega for violating his rights under the

United States Constitution. Plaintiff’s claims arise from prison officials’ failure to grant his request

to remove his former gang affiliation from his bed card and central file, which prevents him from

freely practicing his religion. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that his safety concerns are not being

addressed and he is not being allowed to appeal his claim.

More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked by his cellmate, an affiliated gang

member, on June 8, 2012. Plaintiff informed Defendant Cabrera that he was afraid of being housed

with gang members and he requested to be single celled, to be allowed to practice his religion, and

to have his former gang affiliation removed from his bed card and central file. However, Defendant

Cabrera did not respond to Plaintiff’s GA-22 inmate request form.

2

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 04/10/13 Page 2 of 5
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

On September 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal concerning his religion and housing

issues, but Defendant Da Viega kept informing Plaintiff of the attachments he must include with his

appeal for it to be processed. Plaintiff alleges that he complied with all the requirements identified

by Defendant but his appeal was never returned to him with a response. 

To date, Plaintiff remains double celled and identified as an affiliate of the Bloods. Plaintiff

alleges that these events violated his rights under the First, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth

Amendments.

B. First Amendment Claim

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts which support a claim that Defendants violated

his First Amendment rights. Assuming the intended claim is one for violation of the Free Exercise

Clause, Plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating that he was denied “a reasonable opportunity” to

practice his religion “comparable to the opportunity afforded fellow prisoners who adhere to

conventional religious precepts.” Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. &Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114,

1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079 (1972)) (internal

quotation marks omitted). 

C. Eighth Amendment Claim

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Although prison conditions maybe restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisonerswith

food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have

a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833;

Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect

inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation where

prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g.,

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. 

Plaintiff does not have a constitutionally protected right to be single celled or to demand the

removal of gang information from his bed card or file. Plaintiff does have a right to personal safety,

3

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 04/10/13 Page 3 of 5
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

but his complaint sets forth no facts supporting a claim that either Defendant Cabrera or Defendant

Da Viega acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to his safety. Farmer, 511

U.S. at 833; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. The conclusory assertion of the existence of a safety concern

falls well below what is sufficient to support a plausible claim for relief.

D. Due Process Claim

Although Plaintiff alleges a claim for denial of due process, his complaint fails to state a

claim for relief. “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against

deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must

establish that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct.

2384 (2005). However, Plaintiff does not have a protected liberty interest in the processing of his

appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the

handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing

Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

E. Equal Protection Claim

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied equal protection under the law. The Equal

Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne

v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 (1985); Hartmann, 707 F.3d at

1123; Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,

891 (9th Cir. 2008). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts showing that Defendants acted with

an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based on his membership in a protected class. 

Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123 (quotation marks and citations omitted); accord Furnace, 705 F.3d at

1030-31. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts which suggest Defendants intentionally

discriminated against him by treating him differently than other similarly situated inmates and he

fails to state a claim. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030-31. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. The Court is required to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. 

4

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 04/10/13 Page 4 of 5
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

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). However, Plaintiff may not

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under section 1983,

it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere

respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Snow, 681 F.3d at 989; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d

1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Although accepted as true, the

“[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedesthe original complaint,Lacey v. Maricopa County,

693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference

to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section

1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:12-cv-01904-LJO-SKO Document 6 Filed 04/10/13 Page 5 of 5