Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01184-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS MANUEL FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O CRUZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01184-BAM-PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

EITHER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS 

TO PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE

CLAIMS

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, filed July 30, 2015.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on September 14, 2015 (ECF No. 5).

Case 1:15-cv-01184-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 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

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 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(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 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, brings this civil 

rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Kern Valley 

State Prison, where the events at issue occurred. Plaintiff names the following individual 

defendants: Sergeant Custer; Correctional Officer (C/O) Cruz; C/O Garza; C/O Nichols; C/O 

Lomeli; Psychiatric Technician Gonzales; Psychiatric Technician Rivera. 

Plaintiff alleges that on January 31, 2015, C/O Cruz removed Plaintiff from his cell in 

retaliation for filing inmate grievances against unit staff. Cruz then placed Plaintiff in 

mechanical restraints which caused Plaintiff pain. Plaintiff was placed in a holding cage in the 

unit rotunda. Plaintiff alleges that he became extremely distraught, and began to suffer a panic 

Case 1:15-cv-01184-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 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

attack due to his mental health disorder. Plaintiff alleges that his panic attack “caused C/O Cruz 

to fly into a fit of rage and he began to douse Plaintiff while in restraints while in cage with 

pepper-spray.” (Compl. p. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Custer, Gonzales and Rivera all 

witnessed the incident and refused to decontaminate Plaintiff “for 30 min. to 1 hour.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he suffered “excruciating” effects from the pepper spray and cuts to his 

wrist from the handcuffs being placed too tightly by Defendant Cruz. Plaintiff alleges that he 

was pepper sprayed in retaliation for his filing of complaints against C/O Garza, C/O Nichols 

and C/O Lomeli. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Eighth Amendment 

1. Excessive Force

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners 

from the use of excessive physical force. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010)(per curiam); 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992). What is necessary to show sufficient harm under 

the Eighth Amendment depends upon the claim at issue, with the objective component being 

contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 

(quotation marks and citations omitted). For excessive force claims, the core judicial inquiry is 

whether the force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or 

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37(quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 

7)(quotation marks omitted).

In determining whether the use of force was wanton or and unnecessary, courts may 

evaluate the extent of the prisoner’s injury, the need for application of force, the relationship 

between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the 

responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 

503 U.S. at 7 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

The Court finds that, liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief against 

Defendant Cruz for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has alleged 

Case 1:15-cv-01184-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 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

facts indicating that he was restrained in a holding cage and not offering any resistance when 

C/O Cruz pepper sprayed him. Plaintiff has also alleged facts, construed liberally, indicating that 

Plaintiff’s handcuffs were so tight that they caused him to bleed.

2. Failure to Decontaminate

The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to 

guarantee the safety of inmates, which has been interpreted to include a duty to protect prisoners. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994); Hearns v. Terhune, 413F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th 

Cir. 2005). A prisoner seeking relief for an Eighth Amendment violation must show that the 

officials acted with deliberate indifference to the threat of serious harm or injury to an inmate. 

Gibson v. County of Washoe 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). “Deliberate indifference” has 

both subjective and objective components. A prison official must “be aware of facts the 

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

inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Liability may follow only if a prison official “knows that 

inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take 

reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief against Defendants Cruz,

Custer, Gonzales and Rivera for failure to decontaminate Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. The facts alleged in the complaint indicate that Defendants Custer, Gonzales and 

Rivera were aware that Plaintiff had been subjected to pepper spray, and waited for 30 minutes 

to an hour to decontaminate Plaintiff. 

B. Retaliation

A plaintiff may state a claim for a violation of his First Amendment rights due to 

retaliation under section 1983. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). A viable 

claim of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment consists of five elements:” “(1) an 

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 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. Cartier, 668 F.3d 

Case 1:15-cv-01184-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 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

1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 169 (9th Cir. 2009).

The Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff alleges 

that Cruz removed Plaintiff from his cell and pepper sprayed him in retaliation for filing inmate 

grievances against C/O Garza, C/O Nichols and C/O Lomeli. Such an allegation, with nothing 

more, is insufficient to state a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s speculation fails to link Cruz’s 

conduct with the filing of inmate grievances by Plaintiff. Plaintiff does not identify when he 

filed the grievances or why he filed the grievances. Plaintiff does not allege any facts from 

which the Court can infer that Cruz’s conduct was motivated by Plaintiff’s First Amendment 

activity. That Plaintiff believes the conduct was motivated by retaliation is insufficient to state a 

claim for relief. Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable clam for retaliation. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim against Defendant Cruz for excessive force 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants Cruz, Custer, Gonzales and Rivera 

for failure to decontaminate Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court will 

provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding 

only against Defendants Cruz, Custer, Gonzales and Rivera in his Eighth Amendment claims, 

Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing. The other defendants and claims will then be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will then be provided four summons and four

USM-285 forms for completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the 

United States Marshal to initiate service of process on Defendants Cruz, Custer, Gonzales and 

Rivera.

If Plaintiff elects to amend, his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 

but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional or other federal rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-679; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

Case 1:15-cv-01184-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 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

above the speculative level . . . Twombly 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The mere 

possibility of misconduct is insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Further, 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. 

Humana,Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 

1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint

and is willing to proceed only against Defendant Cruz on his claim of 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Defendants Cruz, 

Gonzales, Custer and Rivera for failure to decontaminate Plaintiff; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01184-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 Page 6 of 6