Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01936/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01936-2/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

REAGAN THOMAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAVERA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1936 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding 

was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). ECF Nos. 2, 9. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

Case 2:15-cv-01936-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 7
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

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(2). 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where 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). “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v. Arizona, 

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted), superseded by statute 

on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Neitzke, 490 

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

has an arguable legal and factual basis. Id. 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citations 

omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that 

merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) 

(quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 1216 (3d 

ed. 2004)). 

Case 2:15-cv-01936-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 7
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

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint 

under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, 

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading 

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

III. Complaint 

 In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that on December 26, 2014, defendant Rivera 

unexpectedly opened his cell door without any warning. ECF No. 1 at 5. When the door was 

opened, plaintiff’s “finger was c[a]ught between the inside door frame and the inside sliding door 

window frame,” amputating his finger. Id. He further alleges that there is a metal strip installed 

along the door frame because the unit where he was housed was previously an administrative 

segregation unit and that the metal strip is “‘hazardous’ and completely ‘dangerous’ to prisoners 

housed within.” Id. He claims that there are no warnings about the danger the doors pose. Id. at 

6. Plaintiff asserts that defendant Rivera “purposely and intentionally caused harm and injuries to 

[him]” and that, as warden, defendant Perry is responsible for plaintiff’s safety and his 

subordinate’s conduct. Id. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

A. Defendant Rivera 

“The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit 

inhumane ones.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). “[A] prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two 

requirements are met. First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious; a 

prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of 

life’s necessities.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Second, the prison 

Case 2:15-cv-01936-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 7
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

official must subjectively have a sufficiently culpable state of mind, “one of deliberate 

indifference to inmate health or safety.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The 

official is not liable under the Eighth Amendment unless he “knows of and disregards an 

excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 

inference.” Id. at 837. Then he must fail to take reasonable measures to abate the substantial risk 

of serious harm. Id. at 847. Mere negligent failure to protect an inmate from harm is not 

actionable under § 1983. Id. at 835. 

It is not clear from plaintiff’s complaint that defendant Rivera was aware of the risk to 

plaintiff’s safety when he opened the cell door. Although plaintiff makes a general accusation 

that defendant Rivera “purposely and intentionally caused harm and injuries,” there are no facts 

alleged in the complaint that would indicate that Rivera knew plaintiff’s was at risk for injury. 

Plaintiff alleges that Rivera opened the cell door, and that the cell doors are operated by the 

control booth officer. ECF No. 1 at 5. This indicates that Rivera was in the control booth when 

he opened plaintiff’s cell door, making it unlikely that he was aware that plaintiff’s hand was in a 

position to be injured by the door. There is nothing in the complaint to demonstrate that the 

incident, while unfortunate, was anything more than an accident and “[a]n accident, although it 

may produce added anguish, is not on that basis alone to be characterized as wanton infliction of 

unnecessary pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976); Harding v. City and County of 

San Francisco, 602 F. App’x 380, 382 (2015) (no constitutional violation when a pretrial 

detainee’s finger was severed after being accidentally slammed in a door). To the extent plaintiff 

is alleging that Rivera ignored a substantial risk of serious harm by not announcing that he was 

opening the door, plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would show Rivera was aware that the 

type of injury plaintiff suffered was a possible consequence of not announcing the door was being 

opened. The claims against defendant Rivera will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend. 

B. Defendant Perry 

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. 

Case 2:15-cv-01936-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 4 of 7
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

362, 371, 376 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). “Vague and 

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. 

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

Additionally, “[t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” Taylor v 

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under 

§ 1983 ‘if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, 

or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 

constitutional violation.’” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). A supervisor may be liable for the constitutional 

violations of his subordinates if he “knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” 

Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. Finally, supervisory liability may also exist without any personal 

participation if the official implemented “a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a 

repudiation of the constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.” 

Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations and quotations 

marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1970). 

To the extent plaintiff appears to be making claims against defendant Perry based solely 

on his position as warden, he fails to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff must allege some specific 

action by Perry that violated his rights. It appears that plaintiff may be attempting to allege that 

Perry was deliberately indifferent to his safety because there were no warning signs about the 

potential danger the doors posed to inmates. ECF No. 1 at 6. However, nothing in the complaint 

suggests that Perry was aware of the potential danger or had reason to believe that warning signs 

were necessary. In order to be deliberately indifferent, plaintiff must allege facts that show that 

Perry knew of the risk to plaintiff’s health and safety and then ignored the risk. For these reasons, 

the claims against defendant Perry will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

V. Leave to Amend 

If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the 

conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo, 

423 U.S. at 370-71. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant 

Case 2:15-cv-01936-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 5 of 7
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

is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 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. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 

743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 929 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled in subsequent 

amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the 

original complaint 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. 

VI. Summary 

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend because the facts plaintiff has alleged are 

not enough to state a claim for relief. If plaintiff wants to state claims against defendants Rivera 

and Perry, he needs to include facts that show that defendants were each aware of the risk to his 

safety and ignored it. For example, if defendant Rivera saw that plaintiff’s hand would be caught 

by the door or if similar incidents occurred or there were complaints about the doors before 

plaintiff was injured, plaintiff should include these facts in his complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the first amended complaint must include all 

of the claims plaintiff wants to make because the court will not look at the claims or information 

in the original complaint. In other words, any claims not in the first amended complaint will not 

be considered. 

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

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

Case 2:15-cv-01936-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith. 

 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

 4. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an 

original and two copies of the amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 

form used in this district. 

DATED: January 5, 2017 

Case 2:15-cv-01936-KJM-AC Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 7 of 7