Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00543/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00543-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

COREY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00543-SKO (PC)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING HOT MEAL 

CLAIM, WITH PREJUDICE, (2) FINDING 

FOOD DEPRIVATION SUPPORTS DUE 

PROCESS CLAIM, AND (3) DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

TO CURE LINKAGE DEFICIENCY

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Corey Williams (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 9, 2015. The Court is 

required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, if the Court 

determines it 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 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

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 

Case 1:15-cv-00543-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/28/15 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

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. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California. He 

brings this suit against CSH Executive Director Audrey King, twenty-one additional named 

defendants, and Does 1 through 50 for violating his constitutional rights with respect to his 

conditions of confinement at CSH. Plaintiff’s claims arise from two policies implemented at 

CSH. The first policy, which was initially implemented in November 3, 2013, requires detainees 

to present their ID card to receive a hot meal. If they fail to do so, they receive a cold sack meal. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has a constitutional right to a hot meal and it is a violation of his rights to 

require him to present his ID card to receive a hot meal.

The second policy, which was implemented on March 5, 2015, requires diabetic detainees

such as Plaintiff to submit to blood glucose level testing prior to being fed, and the failure to 

submit to the testing leads to the denial of food. Plaintiff alleges that when he stated he has the 

right to refuse medical treatment, he was told that he would not receive a hot meal or a cold sack 

meal. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00543-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/28/15 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

B. Denial of Hot Meals

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of 

substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, 

or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal 

rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Plaintiff, as a civil detainee, is entitled to treatment more considerate than that afforded 

pretrial detainees or convicted criminals, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004), 

and his right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the substantive 

component of the Due Process Clause, Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315, 102 S.Ct. 2452 

(1982). However, civil detainees are not free persons with “full civil rights,” Seaton v. Mayberg, 

610 F.3d 530, 535 (9th Cir. 2010), and it is well-established that effective institutional 

management is a legitimate, non-punitive governmental interest, Jones, 393 F.3d at 932. 

Turning to Plaintiff’s first claim, the assertion that “the State has an absolute obligation to 

provide at least three hot meals per day to [him]” is frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

325, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989) (quotation marks omitted); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 

1996). (Doc. 1, Comp., p. 2.) “Food is one of life’s basic necessities,” and the government is 

obligated to provide those in its custody “with adequate sustenance on a daily basis.” Foster v. 

Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 813-14 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the Constitution does not mandate that 

the government provide hot meals. See Foster, 554 F.3d at 813 n.2; Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 

1091 (9th Cir. 1996); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1994); Stewart v. Block, 938 

F.Supp. 582, 588 (C.D.Cal. 1996). The provision of a cold sack meal in lieu of a hot meal is not 

Case 1:15-cv-00543-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/28/15 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

unconstitutional punishment in violation of substantive due process because the distinction 

between hot and cold food is simply not of constitutional magnitude. See Foster, 554 F.3d at 813 

n.2; Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1091; LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456; Stewart, 938 F.Supp. at 588. Nor does it 

violate the procedural component of the Due Process Clause,” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 

221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005), or the Equal Protection Clause, Hartmann v. California Dep’t of 

Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9Cir. 2013); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 

686-87 (9th Cir. 2001). The deficiencies in this claim are not capable of being cured through 

amendment and it shall be dismissed, as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. 

C. Deprivation of Meals

Plaintiff’s second claim arises from the deprivation of meals due to his refusal to submit to 

blood glucose level testing. The food provided to those in government custody need not be tasty 

or aesthetically pleasing but it must be adequate to maintain health. LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456. 

Plaintiff provides a detailed list of the 119 incidents in which he was not provided with a hot meal. 

(Comp., Ex. D.) Of those dates, only February 6, 2015, and February 14, 2015, bear the note “no 

sack provided.” (Id.) Plaintiff attests in his declaration that he received no meal on the evening of 

November 3, 201[4],

1

and that he was not fed any meals by the state from the evening meal of 

March 5, 2015, until breakfast on March 11, 2015. (Id., pp. 30-31.) This allegation is sufficient, 

at the pleading stage, to support a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the Due 

Process Clause.

2

 See Foster, 554 F.3d at 812-13 (denial of 16 meals in 23 days is a sufficiently 

serious deprivation within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment); Jones, 393 F.3d at 931-32 

(civil detainees entitled to more considerate treatment than convicted criminals). However, 

Plaintiff is required to allege a causal connection between the deprivation at issue and the actions 

or omissions of individual defendants, and his complaint does not establish the requisite link 

 

1

In several places, Plaintiff identifies the year of events as 2015. In as much as Plaintiff filed suit in early April 2015, 

the allegation of events occurring later in 2015 must be attributed to drafting error.

2

In his complaint, Plaintiff also refers to the Equal Protection Clause, which requires that persons who are similarly 

situated be treated alike, but there are no allegations supporting the existence of a viable equal protection claim. City 

of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 (1985); Hartmann v. California Dep’t 

of Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 

2001).

Case 1:15-cv-00543-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/28/15 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

between the total denial of food on those dates and the knowledge or participation of individual 

defendants. Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-08. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend to cure 

this linkage deficiency. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s claim that he is constitutionally entitled to a hot meal fails as a matter of law and 

will be dismissed, with prejudice. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez 

v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). In contrast, Plaintiff’s allegation that he was totally 

deprived of food supports a cognizable claim. However, Plaintiff fails to link the deprivation 

complained of to specific actions or omissions attributable to individual defendants, and he will be 

granted leave to amend to cure that deficiency. 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. 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 supercedes the original complaint, 

Lacey, 693 F.3d at 907 n.1, 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 claim arising from the denial of hot meals is dismissed, with prejudice, 

as frivolous and for failure to state a claim;

2. Plaintiff’s due process claim arising from the deprivation of meals is dismissed, 

with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim based on linkage deficiency; 

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

amended complaint; and

//

Case 1:15-cv-00543-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/28/15 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

5. 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.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3 A causal connection is required to state a claim under section 1983 and notwithstanding the fact that food 

deprivation suffices to support a claim for violation of the Constitution, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted under section 1983 in the absence of the requisite causal connection. 

Case 1:15-cv-00543-SKO Document 6 Filed 12/28/15 Page 6 of 6