Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00750/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00750-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY BRIONES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O R. HAND, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 00750 LJO GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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 granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 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 2

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

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

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the CSP Corcoran, brings this civil rights action against defendant 

CDCR officials employed by the CDCR at Pleasant Valley State Prison. The events at issue 

occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley. Plaintiff names as defendants the 

following individuals: Correctional Officer (C/O) R. Hand‟ C/O C. Hendricks; C/O D. Moore; 

C/O Cole. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force. Plaintiff alleges that he is a 

disabled inmate, and that correctional officers assaulted him. One of the officers struck him in 

the ribs. Plaintiff alleges that as a result he broke two ribs. 

A. Excessive Force

The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement.” Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). „[W]hile conditions 

of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they „must not involve the wanton 

and unnecessary infliction of pain.‟” Id. (Quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 2 of 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 3

(1981)). “What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishment Clause depends on the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 

(1992).

For excessive force claims, the issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort 

to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 

U.S. at 7. Although de minimis uses of force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and 

sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates the Eighth Amendment, regardless of whether 

or not significant injury is evident.” Id. at 9-10.

Here, the Court finds that although Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he was subjected 

to excessive force, he does not specifically link any of the named defendants to the use of force. 

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under 

color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or 

federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person 

deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person „does an affirmative act, participates 

in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to 

do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 

988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he 

„requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal 

participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the 

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.‟” 

Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with 

conduct indicating that they subjected Plaintiff to excessive force. Plaintiff may not hold 

defendants liable simply by alleging a use of force and naming individuals as defendants. 

Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each defendant engaged in conduct that constitutes 

excessive force. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. 

Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 3 of 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 4

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 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). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

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

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s 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, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes 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 superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 4 of 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 5

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-00750-LJO-EPG Document 15 Filed 09/26/14 Page 5 of 5