Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04179-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Plaintiff does not explicitly state he was a pretrial

detainee at the time of the events giving rise to his claims. 

However, the Court infers this from the allegations in his Second

Amended Complaint.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF GREGORY AHERN,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. 08-04179 CW

ORDER DISMISSING

SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

AND ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR THREEJUDGE PANEL

(Docket # 26)

Plaintiff Joseph J. Flowers, a state inmate currently

incarcerated at the Marin County jail, has filed this civil rights

action concerning events that took place when he was a pretrial

detainee in the Alameda County Jail.1 On February 3, 2010, the

Court issued a Second Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend in

which it noted that, in his original complaint, Plaintiff attempted

to state claims against employees of the Alameda County Sheriff's

Department, the Marin County Sheriff's Department, the Sacramento

County Sheriff's Department and the Oakland Police Department. The

Court ruled that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (SAC) may

include only claims against the named Defendants from the Alameda

County Sheriff's Department and that, if he wished to pursue claims

against employees of other law enforcement agencies, he must bring

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2For this reason, among others, the Court denies Plaintiff's

motion for a three-judge panel to order his release from the Marin

County jail. (Docket # 26).

2

those claims in separate lawsuits.2

 The Court also explained that,

in an SAC, Plaintiff must allege facts showing what each named

Defendant did that violated his constitutional rights and, if

Plaintiff claimed that any of the Defendants were liable as

supervisors, he must allege that they "participated in or directed

the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them.” On March 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed this SAC.

BACKGROUND

In the captions of his original and first amended complaints,

Plaintiff named Alameda County Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern and other 

individuals defendants. However, in the caption of his SAC, he

only names Sheriff Ahern and indicates other individuals by use of

“et al.” The use of “et al.” in the caption of a complaint fails

to provide notice to the individuals who are being sued. 

Therefore, for this reason alone, the SAC must be dismissed with

leave to amend for Plaintiff to name each individual he is suing in

the caption of the amended complaint. The Court now reviews the

SAC.

In his SAC, Plaintiff divides his factual allegations into the

following eight claims. 

I. Claim One

From March 20, 2007 to August 2, 2007 and from May 13, 2008 to

August 22, 2008, Plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation

(AS) without judicial review or notice of any violations which

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

warranted placing him in AS. Plaintiff alleges that Deputies

Jones, Smith and Delima refused to file his grievances about being

placed in AS. Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Gregory Ahern

participated in, supervised or directed this unlawful conduct and

implemented the policy which allowed it to occur. Plaintiff brings

this claim against Sheriff Ahern and Deputies Smith, C. Delima and

Jones and mentions other defendants who are unknown at this time. 

As indicated above, only Sheriff Ahern is named in the caption of

the SAC.

II. Claim Two

On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff gave two pieces of legal mail to

the “out going mail personal person,” who assured him that the mail

would be shipped out soon. After Plaintiff had not heard from the

court, he filled out a form to request a search for lost mail. He

learned that his legal mail had been opened and the contents had

been misplaced. As a result, a court ruling in his case was

affected. Sheriff Ahern is responsible for the policy and

procedures that allowed Plaintiff’s mail to be opened and its

contents to be lost. Plaintiff brings this claim against Sheriff

Ahern and mentions deputies who are unknown at this time.

III. Claim Three

On August 2, 2007, Plaintiff was transferred from North County

jail to Santa Rita jail. Upon arriving at Santa Rita jail,

Plaintiff, who was wearing red clothing, was placed in a cell with

two inmates who were dressed in yellow clothing. The colors

represent segregation status and inmates wearing different colored

clothing are not to be placed in cells together. The two inmates

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3It appears that Plaintiff was arrested twice during the time

period covered by the SAC.

4

dressed in yellow clothes took possession of Plaintiff’s legal

materials, ripped them up and flushed them down the toilet. The

legal materials were hard copies of Plaintiff’s criminal appeal.

Also, these inmates physically abused Plaintiff. Deputy Fisher

witnessed this incident and could have prevented Plaintiff’s abuse

and the destruction of his legal materials, but she did nothing to

prevent it. Plaintiff brings this claim against Sheriff Ahern and

Deputy Fisher and mentions other unknown deputies. As indicated

above, only Sheriff Ahern is named in the caption of the SAC.

IV. Claim Four

On May 13, 2008, Plaintiff was arrested3 and taken to Santa

Rita jail for routine booking. He was placed in handcuffs, taken

to a closed-off section of the jail and beaten by several Sheriff’s

deputies. After the incident, Plaintiff was told not to report it. 

As a result of the beating, Plaintiff suffers from head, neck and

back pain, hip problems and right wrist problems. Plaintiff brings

this claim against Sheriff Ahern and mentions deputies who are

unknown at this time. 

V. Claim Five

On May 13, 2008, as a result of the above-mentioned assault,

Plaintiff needed medical treatment, but the deputies, who knew of

Plaintiff’s need for medical treatment, refused to allow him to see

a medical practitioner. Plaintiff was also not allowed to have

physical therapy. Because of his lack of medical treatment,

Plaintiff re-injured himself when he tried to walk up and down

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

flights of stairs. Sheriff Ahern’s policies and procedures allowed

his deputies to ignore Plaintiff’s need for medical attention.

Plaintiff brings this claim against Sheriff Ahern and Deputies

Jones, Smith, J. DeLeon, C. Nelson, C. Delima, R. Kull and A.

Valvedia. Only Sheriff Ahern is named in the caption of the SAC. 

Plaintiff also mentions other deputies who are unknown at this

time. 

VI. Claim Six

On July 28, 2008, Plaintiff was harassed by being repeatedly

strip searched without cause. Also, Deputies Smith, J. DeLeon, C.

Delima and H.C. McGinness made verbal remarks about Plaintiff’s

private parts in the presence of female nurses and other inmates

and repeatedly made fun of, humiliated and embarrassed Plaintiff. 

As a result, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional pain and

suffering. Sheriff Ahern is also responsible. 

Plaintiff brings this claim against Sheriff Ahern and Deputies

Smith, DeLeon, Delima and McGinness. Only Sheriff Ahern is named

in the caption of the SAC.

VII. Claim Seven

On August 21, 2008, Deputy W. Posey escorted Plaintiff from

his cell to a medical appointment. Deputy Posey intentionally

failed to secure Plaintiff’s cell so that other inmates or deputies

could enter his cell while he was gone and tamper with Plaintiff’s

legal documents and other personal property. Several of these

legal documents were never returned to Plaintiff, which deprived

him of his right to fair access to the courts. On July 10, 2008,

Plaintiff forwarded to Deputy McNeill legal documents to be copied. 

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 5 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

However, Deputy McNeill never returned these legal documents to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings this claim against Deputies Posey and

McNeill, who are not named in the caption of the SAC.

VIII. Claim Eight

From May 13, 2008 to October 1, 2008, the food Plaintiff was

served was tampered with. For instance, Plaintiff was served beans

with several metal objects, causing Plaintiff to choke. Some of

the food served to Plaintiff was spoiled. Plaintiff found bugs on

his food tray, put them in an envelope and gave them to Deputy C.

Nelson for safe-keeping. Although Deputy Nelson promised to return

the envelope to Plaintiff, he never did so. Sheriff Ahern’s

policies allowed the food-tampering. Plaintiff brings this claim

against Sheriff Ahern and Deputy Nelson, who is not named in the

caption. Plaintiff also mentions other deputies who are unknown at

this time.

Plaintiff alleges that he has “filed and exhausted all legal

county grievances allowed at the time of incarceration.” For this

initial review, the Court will accept these allegations as stating

that Plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies.

 DISCUSSION

I. Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable

claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 6 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of State law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). 

II. Unnamed Defendants

Plaintiff purports to sue sheriff's deputies who are unknown

at this time. In situations where the identity of alleged

defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint, the

plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to

identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery

would not uncover their identities or that the complaint should be

dismissed on other grounds. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,

642 (9th Cir. 1980); Velasquez v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180

(N.D. Cal. 1986). Accordingly, the claims against unnamed

defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. If Plaintiff discovers

any or all of their identities while this action is pending and can

in good faith assert facts alleging constitutionally cognizable

claims for relief against them, he may move for leave to amend his

complaint to add them as named Defendants.

III. Administrative Segregation –- Claim One

When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 7 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

confinement, the proper inquiry is whether the conditions amount to

punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). 

"'[T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the

Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal

adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law.'" Id.

(quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-72 n.40 (1977)).

The state may detain a pretrial detainee "to ensure his

presence at trial and may subject him to the restrictions and

conditions of the detention facility so long as those conditions

and restrictions do not amount to punishment or otherwise violate

the Constitution." Id. at 536-37. If a particular condition or

restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a

legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more,

amount to "punishment." Id. at 539. To determine whether

particular restrictions and conditions accompanying pretrial

detention amount to punishment in the constitutional sense of the

word, the court first looks to whether the disability imposed is

for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of

some other legitimate governmental purpose. Id. at 538. For

example, states must be able to maintain security and order at

pretrial facilities, and restraints that are reasonably related to

an interest in maintaining jail security are not, without more,

unconstitutional punishment. Id. at 540.

Even though pretrial detainees' claims arise under the Due

Process Clause, the Ninth Circuit has determined that the

appropriate standard of review for evaluating constitutional claims

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 8 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 9

of pretrial detainees is the same one used to evaluate convicted

prisoners’ claims under the Eighth Amendment. Carnell v. Grimm, 74

F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996). "The requirement of conduct that

amounts to 'deliberate indifference' provides an appropriate

balance of the pretrial detainees' right to not be punished with

the deference given to prison officials to manage the prisons." 

Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991)

(en banc). Disciplinary segregation as punishment for violation of

jail rules and regulations cannot be imposed without due process,

i.e., without complying with the procedural requirements of Wolff

v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d

517, 523-26 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff’s allegations that he was placed in administrative

segregation without notice or any administrative review process is

sufficient to state a due process violation claim against Deputies

Smith, Delima and Jones. However, they cannot be served until

Plaintiff submits an amended complaint listing them in the caption.

Plaintiff’s allegation that Sheriff Ahern’s policies and procedures

allowed the due process violation is sufficient to state a

cognizable claim against him.

IV. Legal Mail –- Claim Two

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive

mail. Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). A prison,

however, may adopt regulations or practices which impinge on a

prisoner's First Amendment rights as long as the regulations are

"reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 9 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 10

v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Prison officials may institute

procedures for inspecting "legal mail," e.g., mail sent between

attorneys and prisoners, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-

77 (1974) (incoming mail from attorneys), and mail sent from

prisoners to the courts, see Royse v. Superior Court, 779 F.2d 573,

574-75 (9th Cir. 1986) (outgoing mail to court). But the opening

and inspecting of "legal mail" outside the presence of the prisoner

may have an impermissible "chilling" effect on the constitutional

right to petition the government. O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d

322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11

(1972)). If so, prison officials must establish that legitimate

penological interests justify the policy or practice. O'Keefe, 82

F.3d at 327. Generally, "legal mail" may not be read or copied

without the prisoner's permission. Casey v. Lewis, 43 F.3d 1261,

1269 (9th Cir. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). 

But again, prison officials may establish that legitimate

penological interests justify the policy or practice. O'Keefe, 82

F.3d at 327.

Plaintiff’s allegations in claim two are sufficient to state a

cognizable First Amendment claim against Sheriff Ahern for the

policy and procedures that interfered with Plaintiff’s receipt of

his mail. 

V. Attack By Other Inmates –- Claim Three

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take

reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In particular, prison

officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 10 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 11

hands of other prisoners. Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d

1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to

protect inmates from attacks by other inmates or from dangerous

conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment only when

two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is,

objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is,

subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate safety. Farmer,

511 U.S. at 834; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040-41.

The allegations in claim three are sufficient to state a

cognizable claim against Deputy Fisher for deliberate indifference

to Plaintiff’s safety. However, Deputy Fisher cannot be served

until Plaintiff submits an amended complaint with her name in the

caption. Plaintiff fails to allege any conduct by Sheriff Ahern

that violated his constitutional rights. Therefore, this claim

against Sheriff Ahern is dismissed.

VI. Beatings by Deputies -- Claim Four 

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions

under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth

Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). "After

incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain 

. . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the

Eighth Amendment." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)

(ellipsis in original). A pretrial detainee is protected from the

use of excessive force by the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth

Amendment, which is construed in the same way as the Eighth

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10. (1989); Carnell, 74 F.3d

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 11 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 12

at 979. A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be,

objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison

official must possess a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e.,

the offending conduct must be wanton, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S.

at 297); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993).

The allegations in claim four state a cognizable cause of

action for excessive force. However, Plaintiff fails to name any

individuals who participated in these beatings, nor does he mention

any conduct by Sheriff Ahern that implicates him in the

constitutional violation. Therefore, this claim is dismissed with

leave to move to amend should Plaintiff learn the identities of the

deputies who took part in the physical abuse of Plaintiff.

VII. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs -- Claim Five

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the

Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc). A pre-trial detainee’s claim for deliberate

indifference to medical needs derives from the due process clause

rather than the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and

unusual punishment. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

1187 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Bell, 441 U.S. at 535). A

determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination

of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 12 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 13

the nature of the defendant's response to that need. McGuckin, 974

F.2d at 1059. 

The allegations in claim five are sufficient to state a

cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs. However, although Plaintiff names Deputies Jones,

Smith, DeLeon, Nelson, Delima, Kull and Valvedia in the body of

this claim, he fails to allege the conduct of each individual

deputy that violated his constitutional rights. Therefore, this

claim is dismissed against these deputies with leave to amend to

remedy this deficiency and to include them in the caption of the

complaint. The allegation that Sheriff Ahern’s policies and

procedures enabled the individual deputies to violate Plaintiff’s

constitutional right to receive medical treatment for serious

medical needs is insufficient to state a cognizable claim against

him. This claim against him is dismissed with leave to amend, if

he can correct this deficiency.

VIII. Strip Searches –- Claim Six

Incarcerated prisoners retain a limited right to bodily

privacy. Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333 (9th Cir.

1988). Shielding one's unclothed figure from the view of

strangers, particularly strangers of the opposite sex, is impelled

by elementary self-respect and personal dignity. Grummett v.

Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 494 (9th Cir. 1985). Prisoners and pretrial

detainees in institutional settings may be subjected to strip

searches and body cavity searches if they are conducted in a

reasonable manner. Bell, 441 U.S. at 561 (1979). The Fourth

Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches extends

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 13 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 14

to incarcerated prisoners, although the reasonableness of a

particular search must be determined by reference to the prison

context. Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 332. 

The allegations in claim six regarding repeated strip searches

state a cognizable cause of action for unreasonable search and

seizure. However, Plaintiff does not name the deputy who

repeatedly strip-searched him, nor does he mention any conduct by

Sheriff Ahern that implicates him in the constitutional violation. 

The claim is dismissed with leave to move to amend should Plaintiff

learn the identity of the deputy who strip-searched him. The other

allegations in claim six that deputies engaged in verbal conduct

are insufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim. See

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (verbal

harassment or abuse is insufficient to amount to a constitutional

deprivation). Therefore, the claim based on verbal harassment is

dismissed without leave to amend. 

IX. Access to the Courts –- Claim Seven

State prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the

courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). To state a

claim for a violation of the right of access to the courts, a

prisoner must allege conduct on the part of the defendant that

deprived him of access and show that he or she suffered from an

actual injury as a result of that deprivation. Id. at 351. Actual

injury means that the prisoner’s pursuit of a legal claim was

hindered or prevented. Id. 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Deputy McNeill did not return

legal documents to him and that Deputy Posey allowed other deputies

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 14 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 15

to steal Plaintiff’s legal documents fail to state a claim because

he does not allege that these actions impeded his pursuit of a

legal cause of action. This claim is dismissed with leave to move

to amend to include such allegations, if he truthfully can do so,

and to name these deputies in the caption of his complaint.

An unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state

employee is not a violation of a prisoner’s due process rights if

the state provides a meaningful post-deprivation remedy for the

loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Deputy Posey allowed other

deputies to take personal property from Plaintiff’s cell do not

state a due process claim because the California legislature has

provided a remedy for tort claims against public officials. See

Blueford v. Punty, 108 F.3d 251, 256 (9th Cir. 1997); Barnett v.

Kenton, 31 F.3d 813, 186-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (California provides

prisoners an adequate post-deprivation remedy for any property

deprivations under California Government Code §§ 900 et seq., the

California Tort Claims Act); Rider v. Felker, 2010 WL 458915, *4

(E.D. Cal. 2010) (same). This claim is dismissed without leave to

amend.

X. Food Tampering -- Claim Eight

Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the Eighth

Amendment. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996),

amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). The Eighth Amendment

requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to

maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing. 

LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 15 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 16

Nutritionally complete food served to inmates is deficient under

constitutional standards, however, if it is prepared under

conditions so unsanitary as to make it unwholesome and a threat to

inmates who consume it. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. 1388,

1412 (N.D. Cal. 1984); cf. LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456 ("[t]he fact

that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is

served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional

deprivation"). Food that is spoiled and water that is foul would

be inadequate to maintain health. Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1091.

The allegations in claim eight state a cognizable Fourth

Amendment claim for ongoing tampering with Plaintiff’s food so as

to make it a threat to his safety. Plaintiff’s allegations state a

cognizable claim against Sheriff Ahern. However, the allegation

that Deputy Nelson refused to return to Plaintiff an envelope that

contained bugs found in his food is insufficient to state a claim

against him. Therefore, this claim against Deputy Nelson is

dismissed without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. All claims against unnamed defendants are dismissed with

leave to move to amend if Plaintiff learns their identity through

the discovery process. 

2. Plaintiff's claims one, two, and eight are cognizable

against Sheriff Ahern. 

3. Plaintiff’s claim one states a cognizable claim against

Deputies Smith, Delima and Jones. However, they cannot be served

until Plaintiff submits an amended complaint with their names

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 16 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 17

included in the caption.

4. Plaintiff's claim three states a cognizable claim against

Deputy Fisher. However, she cannot be served until Plaintiff

submits an amended complaint with her name in the caption.

5. Plaintiff’s claim four is dismissed with permission to move

for leave to amend if Plaintiff learns the identities of the

individuals who violated his right to be free from excessive force.

6. Plaintiff's claim five against Sheriff Ahern and Deputies

Jones, Smith, DeLeon, Nelson, Delima, Kull and Valvedia is

dismissed with leave to amend to add allegations of each

individual's conduct that constituted deliberate indifference to

Plaintiff's serious medical needs. 

7. Plaintiff's claim six regarding strip searches is dismissed

with permission to move for leave to amend if Plaintiff learns the

identity of the individual who repeatedly strip-searched him. The

claim against Deputies Smith, DeLeon, Delima and McGinness based on

verbal conduct is dismissed without leave to amend. 

8. Plaintiff's claim seven against Deputy Posey for

intentionally allowing other deputies to take Plaintiff’s legal

mail and against Deputy McNeill for not returning legal documents

is dismissed with leave to amend to allege that these actions

impeded his pursuit of a specific legal claim, if he truthfully can

do so. The claim against Deputy Posey, to the extent it is based

on allegations of the taking of Plaintiff’s personal property, is

dismissed without prejudice to pursuing in state court.

9. Plaintiff’s claim eight states a cognizable cause of action

against Sheriff Ahern, but is dismissed against Deputy Nelson

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 17 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 18

without leave to amend.

10. Plaintiff is given thirty days from the date of this Order

to submit a third amended complaint (TAC) which should include in

the caption, in addition to Sheriff Ahern, the names of all

defendants against whom Plaintiff has alleged cognizable claims:

Deputies Smith, Delima, Jones, Fisher, DeLeon, Nelson, Kull,

Valvedia, Posey and McNeill. In the TAC, Plaintiff may amend claim

five for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and claim

seven for lack of access to the courts, if he truthfully can do so. 

If Plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint within thirty

days, only Sheriff Ahern will be served with an order to answer the

cognizable claims against him. 

11. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and

must comply with the Court’s Orders in a timely fashion. Failure

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

12. Plaintiff's motion for a three judge panel to order his

release from the Marin County jail (docket no. 26) is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 18 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH J. FLOWERS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-04179 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on June 3, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies)

in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in

the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's

office.

Joseph J. Flowers

Marin County Jail

13 Peter Behr Dr.

San Rafael, CA 94903

Dated: June 3, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Ronnie Hersler, Adm Law Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-04179-CW Document 38 Filed 06/03/10 Page 19 of 19