Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01320/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01320-4/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

BINH TRAN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. JUNIOUS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01320-EPG-PC

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:

 (1) FILE A THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, OR

 (2) NOTIFY COURT THAT HE IS 

WILLING TO PROCEED ONLY 

AGAINST DEFENDANT SMITH ON 

THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM 

FOUND COGNIZABLE BY THE 

COURT

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. That Second Amended 

Complaint consists of a document entitled ―Plaintiff order to file a second amended complaint 

for relief and damages,‖ a copy of the Court’s prior screening order, and a copy of Plaintiff’s 

First Amended Complaint.1 

 

1 Certain of the facts appear in the attachment to the First Amended Complaint, which is 

attached to the Second Amended Complaint. The documents were filed together. While the Court has discretion 

to disregard anything in the First Amended Complaint, it declines to do so. By filing all documents together, it is 

reasonable to review them as a whole. Moreover, to disregard allegations because they were in a document 

attached rather than copied into the new document would elevate form over substance. Given that the Plaintiff is 

pro se, the Court has construed the complaint liberally and considered allegations throughout the filing labeled 

Second Amended Complaint including attachments. 

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 8
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

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

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at High Desert State Prison in Susanville. Plaintiff’s allegations stem

from conduct that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at North Kern State Prison (NKSP). On 

November 19, 2012, Plaintiff was transported in a paper transportation jumpsuit. Plaintiff 

arrived at NKSP at approximately 5:30 pm. Upon arrival, Plaintiff was escorted to a cage 

outside of the Receiving and Releasing building at approximately 7:00 pm. The cage was 2 1⁄2 

by 2 1⁄2 feet. It smelled of various foul smells. Plaintiff was fed in the cage that night. Plaintiff 

remained in the cage overnight, even though it was located outside and the temperature was 

between 30-40 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Defendant Sergeant E. Smith was in charge of the shift that night. He would 

occasionally come outside to make institutional counts. He was aware that Plaintiff was 

outside in the cage throughout the night.

In the middle of the night, Plaintiff was forced to urinate without use of a restroom. 

At approximately 1:30-2:00 pm the following day, an officer took Plaintiff to another 

cage, where Plaintiff remained for several hours. At 4:00 pm, Plaintiff was taken to a cell with 

a bed, where Plaintiff finally slept. 

Plaintiff names as defendants R. Lopez, associate warden; L. Sebbern, associate 

warden; D. Fode, correctional lieutenant; E. Smith, correctional sergeant; and D. Arroyo, 

correctional officer. He asserts claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment and Supervisory 

Liability. He also mentions in his complaint issues related to equal protection, due process, and 

state law negligence.

II. 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. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).2

 

2

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on September 8, 2014. (ECF No. 

5.)

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 8
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

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).

―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)).

III. Evaluation of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

A. Eighth Amendment

The treatment of prisoners is subject to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against 

cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment ―embodies broad and idealistic 

concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.‖ Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 

97, 102 (1976). ―The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide 

humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate 

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of 8
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

food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the 

safety of the inmates.‖ Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832 (internal citations omitted). See also Toussaint 

v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986) (prison officials must provide prisoners with 

―food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety‖). 

Evaluation of a potential violation of the Eighth Amendment ―includes both an 

objective standard — that the deprivation was serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment — and a subjective standard — deliberate indifference.‖ Colwell v. Bannister, 763 

F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To satisfy the 

subjective element, the plaintiff must show that ―the official knows of and disregards an 

excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which 

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

draw the inference.‖ Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was kept in a small cage without adequate shelter 

or sanitation facilities for 21 hours. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Correctional Sergeant E. 

Smith was in charge of the shift and was aware that Plaintiff was in the cage, yet did nothing to 

remedy the situation. The Court finds that these allegations state a claim against Defendant 

Smith for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

B. Additional Defendants

Plaintiff names various other defendants. The Court does not find that allegations 

against any of these defendants currently state a viable claim against them. As explained in the 

prior screening order, Plaintiff must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. 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.‖ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir.1978). Indeed, the ―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 

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 8
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

others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the 

constitutional injury.‖ Id. at 743–44.

It is not enough that Plaintiff alleges that various defendants had a supervisory role. 

―Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their 

subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Because vicarious liability is inapplicable 

to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, 

through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.‖ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (internal citations omitted). Here, the Court finds that the only 

named defendant who is alleged to have had a direct role in keeping Plaintiff in a cage 

overnight is Defendant Smith. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state claims against any 

other defendant. 

C. Other Claims

Nor does the Court find that Plaintiff has stated a claim for other constitutional 

violations. 

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all citizens, including 

inmates, due process of law. However, only certain interests receive the guarantees of due

process; an inmate's right to procedural due process arises only when a constitutionally 

protected liberty or property interest is at stake. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 

(2005). Therefore, Courts analyze procedural due process claims in two parts. First, the Court 

must determine whether the plaintiff possessed a constitutionally protected interest. Brown v. 

Ore. Dep't of Corrs., 751 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2014). Second, and if so, the Court must 

compare the required level of due process with the procedures the defendants observed. Id. A 

claim lies only where the plaintiff has a protected interest, and defendants' procedure was 

constitutionally inadequate. Id.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violation of the due process 

clause. The complaint does not explain what process was expected, what was given, or how it 

was deficient. All in all, Plaintiff’s claim does not appear to concern the process given or not 

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 5 of 8
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

given, but the fact that Plaintiff was exposed to inhumane conditions of confinement, as 

discussed above.

Nor has Plaintiff stated a claim for violation of the Equal Protection clause. Equal 

protection claims arise when a charge is made that similarly situated individuals are treated 

differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. See San Antonio School 

District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1972). Prisoners are also protected from intentional 

discrimination on the basis of their religion. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th 

Cir. 1997). In order to state a § 1983 claim based on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that defendants acted with intentional 

discrimination against plaintiff, or against a class of inmates which included plaintiff, and that 

such conduct did not relate to a legitimate penological purpose. See Village of Willowbrook v. 

Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Reese v. Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736, 740 (9th 

Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts indicating that any defendant acted in order to 

intentionally discriminate against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s race. 

D. Negligence Claim

Plaintiff also asserts a state law claim for common law negligence. To state a claim for 

negligence under California law, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to show ―(1) duty; (2) 

breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages.‖ Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1203 (9th Cir.

2003). The Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a claim for negligence against Sergeant Smith, 

and only Sergeant Smith, by alleging that he had a duty to care for Plaintiff at the time, 

breached that duty by exposing Plaintiff to inhumane conditions, and that Plaintiff was harmed 

by being exposed to such conditions. Given that the Court has jurisdiction over the section 

1983 federal claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, the Court will exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim as well.

IV. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and finds that it states 

claims against Defendant Smith for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence. The 

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 6 of 8
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

Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to state any other claim or any claim against any other 

defendant.

In the abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff leave to amend if he 

believes that additional facts would state another claim or provide liability against another 

defendant. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, that complaint will supersede this 

complaint and the Court will screen that amended complaint in full. 

Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, the 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; Jones, 297 F.3d 930, 

934 9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter . . . to >state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.=@ Id. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or 

her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant

personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934

(9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). Plaintiff is advised that a short, concise statement of the 

allegations in chronological order will assist the Court in identifying his claims. Plaintiff 

should name each defendant and explain what happened, describing personal acts by the 

individual defendant that resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff should also 

describe any harm he suffered as a result of the violation. Plaintiff should note that although he 

has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of adding new defendants for 

unrelated issues. 

If Plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended 

complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 

n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in itself without reference to the 

prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the 

original complaint 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. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled AThird

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 7 of 8
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

Amended Complaint,@ refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under 

penalty of perjury. 

Otherwise, Plaintiff may choose to go forward on this Second Amended Complaint

against Defendant Smith for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence as described in 

this order.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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

either:

(1) File a Third Amended Complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies 

identified in this order, or

(2) Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 

complaint and is instead willing to proceed only on the cognizable 

Eighth Amendment and negligence claims against defendant Sergeant 

Smith;

3. Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint AThird Amended Complaint@ and refer to the case number 

1:14-cv-01320-EPG-PC; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action may be dismissed for 

failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01320-DAD-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/21/16 Page 8 of 8