Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00494/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00494-5/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 

JASON LOKERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TUCKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0494 SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint for screening. For the reasons 

set forth below, this court finds plaintiff states potentially cognizable claims for relief against 

defendants Tucker and Rueda but states no other claims. Plaintiff will be given a choice. 

Plaintiff may proceed immediately on his claims against Tucker and Rueda, and dismiss the other 

claims and defendants, or plaintiff may file a third amended complaint. 

SCREENING 

I. Legal Standards 

As described in the court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen 

complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 

U.S.C. §1983. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis 

for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 8
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 

Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 

defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 

(1978). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s 

“personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 

series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 

[the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 

constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). A court shall dismiss a complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 

II. Background 

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on February 15, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Before the court 

screened that complaint, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 4, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) 

Plaintiff sought relief against four defendants. He identified two as Correctional Officers Tucker 

and Rueda. He did not provide names for the other two defendants. He identified them as 

Captain Doe and Lieutenant Doe. Plaintiff alleged that in 2021 and 2022 when he was 

incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”), he was threatened and attacked by 

another inmate, McNeil. Despite knowledge of the threats and of prior attacks, defendants failed 

to take action to protect plaintiff from McNeil. McNeil attacked plaintiff in March 2022 causing 

plaintiff significant injuries. Plaintiff further alleged that based on the confrontations with 

McNeil, he was transferred to a prison that cannot accommodate his disabilities. 

On screening, the court found plaintiff stated no claims for relief cognizable under section 

1983. (ECF No. 9.) The court found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing Captain Doe had 

knowledge of any threats or attacks by McNeil and failed to show Lieutenant Doe had knowledge 

of continuing threats from McNeil or that he failed to take appropriate action when told of a 

threat. The court further found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that Tucker and Rueda had 

sufficient information to know that plaintiff was at risk of an attack by McNeil in March 2022. 

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 8
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 

III. Discussion 

A. Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18)

 Plaintiff identifies the same defendants identified previously - Correctional Officers 

Tucker and Rueda, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant Doe. Plaintiff adds as a defendant Robert 

Burton, the Warden at CHCF. 

 Plaintiff alleges the following: He is wheelchair bound and suffers from seizures. In 

October 2021, plaintiff was housed in a yard with inmate McNeil. McNeil was placed on that 

yard due to hypotension but was otherwise able-bodied. McNeil had a history of attacking 

disabled inmates, which all defendants “would have known.” 

On November 1, 2021, McNeil threatened plaintiff numerous times within earshot of 

defendants Rueda and Tucker. McNeil then attacked plaintiff. Neither defendant intervened until 

McNeil attacked. Plaintiff and McNeil were separated and each signed a “marriage chrono.” 

Plaintiff describes a marriage chrono as a document in which inmates agree to get along. 

 On November 2, McNeil attacked another inmate. When plaintiff called for help, McNeil 

began assaulting plaintiff. After that assault, McNeil was confined to quarters. Plaintiff contends 

Captain Doe instituted a policy at CHCF whereby violent inmates were housed with low security, 

nonviolent ones. Under the previous policy, an inmate like McNeil who was confined to quarters 

due to violence would have been moved to a new housing unit. 

 Over a month later, Lieutenant Doe asked plaintiff to sign a marriage chrono regarding 

McNeil. Doe told plaintiff he felt McNeil was no longer a threat. Plaintiff felt compelled to sign. 

Plaintiff states that an inmate who refuses to sign a marriage chrono is at risk of being moved to 

another institution. According to plaintiff, CHCF is the only institution that can accommodate his 

disabilities. 

 On February 16, 2022, McNeil was released from confinement to quarters. McNeil then 

began harassing plaintiff. Tucker and Rueda were working in the building at that time and 

“would have had ample opportunity to observe McNeil’s harassment campaign.” 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 8
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 

On February 19, McNeil threatened plaintiff. Plaintiff later told Lieutenant Doe about the 

threats. Lieutenant Doe, who was Tucker and Rueda’s senior officer, told plaintiff to talk with 

them the following day. Plaintiff did so. 

 Over the next 28 days, McNeil continued to harass and threaten plaintiff on a “near-daily 

basis.” Plaintiff told Tucker and Rueda about the threats “as they were happening.” 

On March 19, McNeil attacked plaintiff for a third time, resulting in a concussion and 

damage to plaintiff’s teeth. Plaintiff and McNeil were then documented as having “enemy 

concerns.” CHCF policy was to transfer one of the inmates to a new prison. On May 11, 2022, 

CDCR transferred plaintiff to Salinas Valley State Prison and placed him in the Correctional 

Treatment Center (“CTC”). CDCR later moved him to High Desert State Prison and again placed 

him in the CTC. Plaintiff states that the CTC at each prison is the only housing area that can 

accommodate his disabilities but being housed there means he does not have access to in-person 

visiting, groups, and religious services, among other things. 

B. Does Plaintiff State Claims for Relief? 

 Plaintiff has alleged minimally sufficient claims that defendants Tucker and Rueda were 

deliberately indifferent to the threats of harm to plaintiff from inmate McNeil in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s allegations show that Tucker and Rueda were aware of the 

November 1, 2021 attack and that plaintiff repeatedly told them that he was being threatened by 

McNeil during the month leading up to the March 19, 2022 attack. Plaintiff will be permitted to 

proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims that Tucker and Rueda failed to protect him from the 

March 19, 2022 attack. 

 Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege claims against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff 

alleges that Lieutenant Doe had some awareness that McNeil was a threat to plaintiff. However, 

plaintiff does not allege facts showing that Lieutenant Doe knew of the threats occurring in the 

month prior to the March 2022 attack. Plaintiff also fails to show Lieutenant Doe’s referral of the 

problem to Tucker and Rueda was so unreasonable that it demonstrates he knew of, and 

disregarded, a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 

837 (1994). 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 8
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 also fails to state a sufficient claim against Captain Doe. The fact that Captain 

Doe changed a policy that created more risk for all low security inmates does not demonstrate 

that Captain Doe knew that any inmates, much less plaintiff, had suffered harm as a result of that 

policy change or would suffer harm. Plaintiff’s allegations do not show Captain Doe was aware 

of the specific risks McNeil posed to plaintiff. 

 Finally, plaintiff identifies the warden as a defendant but does not describe any actions 

attributable to him. Nor does plaintiff state any claims based on the transfer to another prison. 

Plaintiff does not have a right to choose his place of incarceration. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 

U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983) (prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular 

institution); see also Tyler v. Coggins, No. 1:10-cv-0098 AWI MJS (PC), 2012 WL 285023, *2 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (denial of requested transfer did not constitute sufficiently serious 

deprivation to satisfy first element of Eighth Amendment claim); Seidenfeld v. Rosales, No. CV 

10-7004 PA (JCG), 2011 WL 835782, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2011). To the extent plaintiff feels 

the place he is currently incarcerated is violating his rights, he should seek relief against the 

appropriate defendants responsible for those current conditions. 

CONCLUSION 

This court finds above that plaintiff states minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claims 

against defendants Tucker and Rueda. This court further finds that plaintiff fails to state any 

other claims for relief cognizable under §1983. Plaintiff will be given a choice. Plaintiff may 

choose to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against Tucker and Rueda or he 

may choose to file a third amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed now on his claims 

against Tucker and Rueda, plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss all other claims and defendants. 

If plaintiff chooses to file a third amended complaint, plaintiff must address the problems 

with his second amended complaint that are explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in an 

amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took 

that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required to review exhibits to determine 

what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a 

claim, he must include it in the body of the complaint. The charging allegations must be set forth 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 8
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 

in the amended complaint so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. 

That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff 

should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a person deprives another of a 

constitutional right if that person was personally involved in the deprivation, set in motion acts by 

others that resulted in the deprivation, or refused to terminate acts by others that resulted in the 

deprivation). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 

are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

The federal rules contemplate brevity. Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and 

plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 

(2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to 

focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has 

evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 6 of 8
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 

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff has stated minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 

Tucker and Rueda. 

2. Plaintiff’s other claims and defendants are dismissed with leave to amend. 

3. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his potentially cognizable claims set out above or 

he may choose to file a third amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on 

his potentially cognizable claims in the second amended complaint, he shall 

voluntarily dismiss his other claims and defendants. 

4. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 

attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action. 

5. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: December 11, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 7 of 8
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 

JASON LOKERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TUCKER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0494 SCR P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants Tucker and Rueda. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the 

second amended complaint he is voluntarily dismissing all other claims and defendants. 

_____ Plaintiff wants to file a third amended complaint. 

DATED:______________________ 

 ____________________________________ 

Jason Lokerson, Plaintiff 

Case 2:24-cv-00494-SCR Document 20 Filed 12/11/24 Page 8 of 8