Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01143/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01143-1/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

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

DONALD R. NORWOOD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-01143-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Donald R. Norwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 14, 2014, 

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. 

(ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on December 12, 2014, is currently 

before the Court for screening. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 12
2

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

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, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, 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). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially 

plausible, 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California. 

The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred at California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility/CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Ralph Diaz; (2) 

Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez; (3) Correctional Sergeant A. Chan; (4) Correctional Sergeant C. 

Garza; (5) Patrick Darnell, Chair Facility Administrator; (6) Registered Nurse Jose Munoz; (7) 

Registered Nurse Fragino Arola; (8) Dialysis Technician Stephanie Moore; (9) Correctional 

Counselor M. Hernandez; (10) Correctional Officer H. Arriaga; (11) Correctional Officer J. 

Carlos; and (12) Correctional Officer A. Oregel. 

Claim 1:

In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 12
3

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

Plaintiff has been retaliated/harass against, and denied medical care, in the form 

of false disciplinary reports (CDCR 115) being filed. Documents in Plaintiff C 

File being manipulated to influence committee ICC/UCC action-Also, along with 

Medical and Correctional staff providing inadequate medical care. Plaintiff 

endured constant duress, due to all above defendants mentioned, herein, 

collectively participated in violation of Plaintiff 1st/8th amendment rights and due 

process clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which ultimately 

chill and/or silence the effects of Plaintiff exercise of his rights and to pursue civil 

rights litigation in the courts through actions that do not advance any legitimate 

penological goals, nor are tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals. 

(ECF No. 12, pp. 3, 5.)

Claim 2:

In claim 2, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

On August 9, 2012 Plaintiff filed a CDC 602 appeal against Correctional Officers 

H. Arriaga, A Chan SGT. and (19) prison dialysis staff Stephanie Moore, in 

regards to cruel and unusual punishment and the filing of this appeal resulted to 

no avail (disappearance of Plaintiff appeal). Plaintiff filed CDC 22 dated 9.5.12, 

to clarify losted [sic] appeal. 

(ECF No. 12, p. 5.)

Claim 3:

In claim 3, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

On August 28, 2012 Plaintiff submitted CDC 602 log no. SATF-C-12-04316 for 

continuous retaliation by dialysis escort trans Correctional Officers. Plaintiff 

endured harassment by defendants Lt. F. A. Rodriguez, Sgt. A. Chan, Sgt. C. 

Garza, H. Arriaga, J. Carlos, and A. Oregel. The defendants retaliatory actions do 

not advance a legitimate penological interest and caused a chilling and silencing 

effect on Plaintiff exercise of his First Amendment rights. 

(ECF No. 12, p. 6.) 

Claim 4:

In claim 4, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment 

by defendants R.N. J. Munoz, R.N. F. Arola, who both terminated my dialysis 

treatment purposely and maliciously, after already knowing Plaintiff was

previously assessed by another nurse. However, the defendants R.N. J. Munoz, 

R.N. F. Arola, Sgt. A. Chan and C/O H. Arriaga all collectively conspired to 

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 12
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

terminate Plaintiff treatment. The actions of these above defendants participating 

in retaliatory manner against Plaintiff, which caused a chilling and silencing effect 

on Plaintiff exercise of his Eighth Amendment rights to the U.S. Constitution, to 

be provided with adequate medical care. 

(ECF No. 12, p. 6.)

Claim 5:

In claim 5, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

On September 11, 2012 Plaintiff filed CDC 602 (Log no. SATF-SC-120014 16) 

against both RNs J. Munoz/F. Arola for depriving me of adequate medical care by 

terminating my dialysis care. Both defendants conduct demonstrated malicious 

and sadistic intent, to hinder Plaintiff health, which it did. “E.g.”, Plaintiff had 

excessive fluid, didn’t receive hemodialysis medication, institution yard doctor 

confirmed that Plaintiff need to dialize [sic], (19) chair denied treatment. 

Violation of Plaintiff Eighth Amendment rights to the U.S. Constitution, to be 

provided with adequate medical care.

(ECF No. 12, pp. 6.)

Claim 6:

In claim 6, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Plaintiff was informed by Sgt. at dialysis (19) chair prison, that Patrick Darnell, 

the facility administrator, would consult regarding Health Care appeal (log no. 

SATF-SC-12001416). However, no consult was conducted to resolve matters 

relevant herein.

(ECF No. 12, p. 7.)

Claim 7: 

In claim 7, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

On 10-1-12 Plaintiff was dializing [sic], and during my treatment, RN J. Munoz, 

give Plaintiff dialysis medication w/o requesting an assessment, in opposition to 

9-5-12 incident surrounding RVR (log no. C-12-09-003) which was ultimately the 

main focal point of Plaintiff filing this complaint and defendant J. Munoz, 

retaliatory actions constitute deliberate indifference to Plaintiff rights to file 

grievances and to pursue civil rights litigation in violation of the First 

Amendment/Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(ECF No. 12, p. 7.)

Claim 8:

In claim 8, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 12
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 10-25-12 Plaintiff submitted appeal CDCR 602 (log no. SATF C-12-05076)

against Correctional Counselor M. Hernandez, for falsifying documents and 

making threatening remarks. Defendant M. Hernandez, maliciously and 

sadistically inflicted emotional and mental abuse upon Plaintiff and caused a 

chilling and silencing effect on Plaintiff. Plaintiff received (CDC 695) forms 

citing errors that wasn’t committed, which hindered and impeded Plaintiff to 

exhaust administrative remedies. 

(ECF No. 12, p. 7.)

Claim 9:

In claim 9, Plaintiff alleges:

On 11-9-12 Plaintiff appeal/CDCR 602 was heard on the second 2

nd level review 

by dialysis lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez. The defendant participated in the 

retaliatory actions and the due process violations by making threatening remarks 

and/or hindering Plaintiff attempt to rectify dialysis escort trans C/Os conduct to 

no avail. And the defendant lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez, actions do not advance a 

legitimate penological interest and caused a chilling and silencing effect on 

Plaintiff exercise of his First Amendment rights. 

(ECF No. 12, p. 7-8.) 

Claim 10:

In claim 10, Plaintiff alleges:

On 12-1-12, defendants RN J. Munoz and technician Stephanie Moore, caused 

cruel and unusual punishment, and negligence towards a serious medical need. 

And against physician/doctor orders purposely and with malicious intent gave 

Plaintiff heparin medication that ultimately caused Plaintiff harmed, and violated 

Plaintiff exercise of his Eighth Amendment rights to the U.S. Constitution, to be 

provided with adequate medical care. 

(ECF No. 12, p. 8.)

Claim 11:

In claim 11, Plaintiff alleges:

On 1-24-13, Plaintiff was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by 

defendants correctional officers J. Carolos and A. Oregel, who both stripped 

search Plaintiff w/o legitimate cause, and both defendants making threatening 

remarks, stating “You[’]re going to get it, and you know what for.” 

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 12
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

Also, not finding any contraband on/or in Plaintiff possession, the actions of both 

defendants do not advance a legitimate penological interest and caused a chilling 

and silencing effect on Plaintiff exercise of his First Amendment rights.

(ECF No. 12, p. 8.)

Claim 12: 

In claim 12, Plaintiff alleges:

On 1-26-13, at (19) chair prison dialysis, defendant RN F. Arola asked, “If Im 

fine” and Plaintiff responded motioning my head yes, at which defendant became 

irate/hostile admitting, “He don’t have to assess me, but he has to ask if I’m fine.” 

And in complete contrast to 9-5-12 incident, with both RNs J. Munoz and F. 

Arola indicating, “An assessment is an mandatory portion of the treatment.” 

(ECF No. 12, p. 8.)

Claim 13:

In claim 13, Plaintiff alleges:

On 2-19-13, defendant Stephanie Moore, retaliated against Plaintiff in the form of 

falsifying disciplinary report, and using unnecessary and/or excessive force 

against Plaintiff in a manner which caused a chilling and silencing effect on 

Plaintiff exercise of his First Amendment rights to the U.S. Constitution. 

(ECF No. 12, p. 9.)

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, along with injunctive relief. 

III. Deficiencies of Complaint

As with his original and first amended complaint, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

is in contravention of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 18 and 20. Despite being provided 

with the relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure these 

deficiencies. The Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. 

A. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 6 of 12
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

(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff's complaint does not include a short and plain statement of his claims. Rather, 

Plaintiff’s complaint is filled with conclusory, vague and confusing statements, which do not 

provide specific factual information. Plaintiff’s recitation of the elements of claim is not 

sufficient. Although provided with the relevant pleading standard and direction from the Court, 

Plaintiff has been unable to cure this deficiency. 

2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20

Plaintiff is raising numerous claims based on different events involving different 

defendants between August 2012 and March 2013. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims 

against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 

F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may 

bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same 

transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons 

questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th 

Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th 

Cir. 1980). Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review the 

other claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of 

multiple claims against the same party.

Plaintiff is alleging discrete events involving alleged retaliation by various dialysis 

personnel and alleged retaliation by various correctional officers. Plaintiff was cautioned against 

violation of the joinder rules, but has been unable to cure this deficiency. 

B. Legal Standards

1. Retaliation

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation consists of five 

elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 7 of 12
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

because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005); accord

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 

(9th Cir.2009).

A plaintiff suing for retaliation under section 1983 must allege that “he was retaliated 

against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action does not advance 

legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline.” Barnett v. 

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994). The plaintiff does not need to show actual inhibited or 

suppressed speech, but that there was a chilling effect upon his speech. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 569. 

The burden is on the plaintiff to plead and prove the absence of any legitimate correctional goals 

for the alleged conduct. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995).

Plaintiff appears to assert claims of retaliation against various defendants, including a 

retaliatory strip search. However, Plaintiff fails to establish that defendants in these incidents 

took an adverse action against Plaintiff because of any protected conduct or exercise of his 

constitutional rights. There is no indication that defendants were aware of any grievances or 

other appeals filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also fails to allege any chilling effect or, in some 

instances, the absence of any legitimate correctional goals for the conduct. As stated above, 

Plaintiff’s mere recitation of these elements is not sufficient. 

2. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an 

inmate must show “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 

L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show 

(1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner's condition could 

result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) 

“the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012).

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 8 of 12
9

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

Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and 

fails to adequately respond. Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 

2010). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019; Toguchi v. 

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). The prison official must be aware of facts from 

which he could make an inference that “a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he must 

make the inference. Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994).

Plaintiff appears to allege two separate incidents related to his medical needs. In the first 

incident, Plaintiff alleges that on September 5, 2012, Defendants Munoz and Arola terminated 

his dialysis treatment despite knowing Plaintiff was previously assessed by another nurse. In his 

prior complaint, Plaintiff admitted that he refused to undergo an assessment, which resulted in 

the termination of his dialysis treatment. Plaintiff may not merely omit factual allegations in 

order to state a claim for relief. As Plaintiff declined to undergo an assessment, he cannot 

demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by termination of his dialysis 

treatment.

In the second incident, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants gave him Heparin on December 

1, 2012, in violation of doctors’ orders. At best, Plaintiff has alleged medical malpractice, which 

is not sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; see

also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). Even gross negligence is 

insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).

3. Grievance/Appeal Procedure

Plaintiff appears to assert claims regarding review of his appeals. However, the prison 

grievance procedure does not confer any substantive rights upon inmates and actions in 

reviewing appeals cannot serve as a basis for liability under section 1983. Buckley v. Barlow, 

997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). Involvement in reviewing an inmate’s administrative appeal 

does not necessarily demonstrate awareness of alleged violation. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 

1076, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2014).

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 9 of 12
10

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. Use of Verbal Threats/Harassment

To the extent Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants made threatening statements, such 

allegations are not sufficient to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. Mere verbal harassment or 

abuse, including the use of racial epithets, does not violate the Constitution and, thus, does not 

give rise to a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 

139 (9th Cir. 1987). Threats do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Gaut v. Sunn, 

810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987).

5. False RVR/115 Report

Plaintiff appears to allege his rights were violated by a false disciplinary charge made in 

February 2013 by Stephanie Moore. An inmate can state a cognizable claim arising from a false 

disciplinary report if the false report was done in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutional 

rights or if the inmate was not afforded procedural due process in connection with the resulting 

disciplinary proceedings as provided in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–70, 94 S.Ct. 

2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1874). See Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir.1997) 

(retaliation); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1141 (7th Cir.1984) (finding that an allegation 

that a prison guard planted false evidence which implicated an inmate in a disciplinary infraction 

failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted where procedural due process protections 

are provided); Brown v. Leyva, 2009 WL 129879, *3 (E.D.Cal. Jan.20, 2009) (prisoner failed to 

state cognizable due process or retaliation claim based on allegedly false charges and reports); 

Rodgers v. Reynaga, 2009 WL 62130, *2 (E.D.Cal. Jan.8, 2009) (inmate’s allegations that 

defendants conspired to fabricate a false criminal offense that resulted in his re-housing in 

administrative segregation failed to state a cognizable retaliation or due process claim).

Here, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the purportedly false disciplinary charge 

was done in retaliation for the exercise of any protected right. Further, Plaintiff does not claim 

that he was denied any procedural due process protections. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to 

state a cognizable claim based on the allegedly false disciplinary charge.

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 10 of 12
11

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. Excessive Force

Plaintiff also asserts a claim for excessive force against Defendant Moore. To constitute 

cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must 

involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 

101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). The inquiry as to whether a prison official's use of 

force constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is “whether force was applied in a good-faith 

effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Whitley v. Albers, 475 

U.S. 312, 320, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1085(312), 89 L.Ed.2d 251.

“The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is ... contextual and 

responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. at 1000

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A prison official’s use of force to maliciously 

and sadistically cause harm violates the contemporary standards of decency. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 

559 U.S. 34, 37, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178, 175 L.Ed.2d 995 (2010). However, “[n]ot ‘every 

malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 

37 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. at 1000). Factors that can be considered are “the 

need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that 

was used, [and] the extent of injury inflicted.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. at 1085; 

Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689, 692 (9th Cir.2003).’

Here, Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that the force was applied maliciously and 

sadistically to cause harm. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts surrounding the alleged use of 

excessive force by Defendant Moore. Indeed, there are no facts regarding the application of 

force, the amount of force used and the extent of injury, if any. 

Further, Plaintiff did not previously assert this claim against Defendant Moore in his first 

amended complaint. Plaintiff was cautioned that he could not change the nature of this suit or 

add new claims. Therefore, leave to amend this claim is not warranted. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 11 of 12
12

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

IV. Conclusion and Order

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, 18 and 20 and fails 

to state a cognizable claim. Despite being provided with the relevant legal and pleading 

standards and given multiple opportunities, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the identified 

deficiencies. Accordingly, further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is HEREBY 

DISMISSED, without leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. All pending 

motions, if any, are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01143-BAM Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 12 of 12