Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01212/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01212-0/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL AARON WITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

F. GONZALEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-1212-KJM-EFB (PC)

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff’s application 

makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2) and is therefore granted. 

Determining that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. 

Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 

Screening Standards 

In screening a pro se pleading, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the 

Case 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB Document 7 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 4
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

plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy 

the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) 

requires a complaint to include “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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

Screening Order

Plaintiff purports to bring a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim and an Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim based on the following allegations: Plaintiff was assigned to 

the California Medical Facility Minimum Security Ranch. ECF No. 1 at 5. On June 18, 2021, 

five investigative services unit officers “physically grabbed” plaintiff. Id. Defendants knew 

plaintiff was “not subjected to any further level of supervision.” Id. Defendant Gonzalez 

“handcuffed plaintiff using excessive force that fractured plaintiff’s left wrist and damaged his 

ulnar nerve.” Id. Defendants then “dragged” plaintiff to an officer for an “unclothed body 

search.” Id. Plaintiff asked defendants to loosen his handcuffs. Id. Plaintiff was tightly 

handcuffed for five minutes. Id. 

For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, searches of prisoners must be reasonable to be 

constitutional. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2010). “The test of 

reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical 

application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the 

invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of the 

particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the 

place in which it is conducted.” Id. (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, (1979)). Here, 

the allegations are too vague and conclusory to show that the “unclothed body search” was 

unreasonable. 

For an excessive force claim, plaintiff must show that the officer applied the force 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). In making this determination, the court 

may evaluate (1) the need for application of force, (2) the relationship between that need and the 

Case 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB Document 7 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 4
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

amount of force used, (3) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and (4) any 

efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7; see also id. at 9-10 (“The 

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from 

constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not 

of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted)). As with the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claim, the allegations as to the 

excessive force care too vague and conclusory to establish the required elements for such a claim. 

In any amended complaint, with these factors in mind, plaintiff should provide more factual 

context to his claim. For example, why did the defendants originally “grab” and handcuff him? 

Did Gonzalez know, when applying the handcuffs, that they were excessively tight? How did 

plaintiff respond to being grabbed and handcuffed? What was happening during the five minutes 

that plaintiff remained handcuffed? Further, if plaintiff wishes to pursue this claim against all 

five officers, and not only against defendant Gonzalez, he must specifically allege how each 

individual officer personally participated in the use of excessive force against him. 

Leave to Amend

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint if he can allege a cognizable 

legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal 

theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must 

afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). 

Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set 

forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. 

Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, 

unrelated claims. Further, any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above 

and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 

Case 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB Document 7 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 4
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

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

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

2. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Failure to comply 

with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for the 

reasons stated herein. 

Dated: November 2, 2022. 

Case 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB Document 7 Filed 11/03/22 Page 4 of 4