Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00656/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00656-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS BERNAL, CASE NO. CV-F-05-656 REC DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

vs.

P. ALVARADO, et al.,

Defendants. [Doc. 1]

 /

Plaintiff Carlos Bernal is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in a civil rights action pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint filed

May 19, 2005. 

A. Screening Standard

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). “Notwithstanding any

filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time

if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

Case 1:05-cv-00656-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 03/07/06 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

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984),

citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners

Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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 Hospital Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 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).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff names as defendants, inmates P. Alvarado and Jesus Herrera, the Warden of Corcoran

State Prison, Sergeant Scaife and Sergeant Oehlert. Plaintiff alleges that inmates Alvarado and Herrera

accused plaintiff of being a pedophile and also of rape and murder. He contends that based on these

rumors, defendants Scaife and Oehler and other correctional guards have started calling him derogatory

names and subjecting him to inhumane conditions. He asserts that someone has been putting things in

his food and spitting on his canteen. He contends that based on the rumors, his life is in danger. 

Plaintiff is advised that inmates Alvarado and Herrera are not proper defendants in this civil

rights action because they were not acting under color of law. To state a claim under section 1983, a

plaintiff must plead (1) that the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) that the defendant

deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution orfederal statutes. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d

1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state law. See Price

v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff is also advised that verbal harassment or abuse 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). Therefore the allegation that the other defendants began calling plaintiff

derogatory names does not state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. 

Plaintiff also states that defendants have subjected him to inhumane conditions, however, he does

not provide enough detail for the court to determine whether the conditions were violative of the

Case 1:05-cv-00656-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 03/07/06 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

constitution. 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 (1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must

provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id.;

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th

Cir. 1982). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of confinement, prison

officials may be held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious

harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff must provide more detail

regarding the conditions he was subject to and defendants actions in order state a cognizable claim for

relief. 

In summary, as submitted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any cognizable claims for relief

against the named defendants and therefore must be dismissed in its entirety. However, the Court will

provide plaintiff the opportunityto file an amended complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies identified

in this order will result in dismissal of this action without leave to amend. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved. 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. 362

(1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). 

To the extent plaintiff is claiming that defendants’ actions have put him at risk, in order state a

cognizable constitutional claim, plaintiff must establish that they were deliberately indifferent to a

substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to

protect inmates from physical abuse. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1250-51; Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 833 (1994). To establish a violation ofthis duty, the inmate must establish that prison officials

were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate’s safety. Farmer, 511

U.S. at 834. The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First,

Case 1:05-cv-00656-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 03/07/06 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

the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . .” Id. at 834 (citing Wilson

v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading 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. 

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

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; 

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a complaint form; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to 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 "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original and two

copies ofthe amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will

result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00656-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 03/07/06 Page 4 of 4