Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02877/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02877-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY NEVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS VEGA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02877-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Jerry Neves, a prisoner currently at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility/State Prison in Corcoran, California, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaining of conditions of confinement at Salinas Valley State Prison, where he earlier 

was housed. His complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges that Neves was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he 

was deprived of laundry services for his work uniform for more than eight months while he was an 

inmate worker at Salinas Valley State Prison. In his job, he was assigned as an “IAPW,” which is 

an inmate designated to assist inmates with their ADA needs. Docket No. 1 at 6. On April 28, 

2014, prison officials began requiring the IAPW inmates to wear “„designated multi-colored ADA 

pullover jerseys during their working hours.‟” Id. When Neves received his assigned jersey, he 

recognized it as the sort of jersey that was previously used by other inmates in intramural sports. 

Id.at 7. The jersey he received smelled of body odor. Id.

The IAPWs had to wear the jerseys from April 28, 2014 through January 5, 2015. During 

this time, prison officials failed and refused to launder the jerseys. Neves worked an unspecified 

Case 3:16-cv-02877-SI Document 3 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

number of days for shifts of an unspecified length during this period. He sweat profusely in his 

jersey on the unspecified number of days when the temperature reached 90 degrees or above, and 

the jersey got wet on the unspecified number of days when he had to work in rainy weather. 

When Neves complained that he did not want to wear his jersey because it was filthy, a 

correctional officer told him to wear it or receive a rule violation report. 

Neves filed an inmate appeal on or about September 10, 2014. The response stated that the 

prison did not have the ability to launder inmate clothing; the prison sent laundry out to another 

prison for laundering; the only laundry items sent out were the “blues and whites”; new jerseys 

had been ordered and would be distributed upon arrival; and officials were working on a solution 

to the laundry problem. Docket No. 1-3 at 2-3. The inmate appeal response described the clothing 

items: “the sports jersey is a light vest made from breathable material worn on the outside of the 

wearer‟s clothes. The vests are hand-washable or machine washable. The duties of the IAPW 

inmates generally do not cause the IAPW inmates to get dirty or sweaty.” Id. at 3. 

On January 5, 2015, SVSP officials required the IAPWs to return the jerseys, thus ending 

the problem.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 

claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Case 3:16-cv-02877-SI Document 3 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit 

inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner 

receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the 

Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). The Eighth Amendment 

imposes duties on prison officials to provide prisoners with the basic necessities of life, such as 

food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. 

A plaintiff alleging that conditions of confinement amount to cruel and unusual punishment 

prohibited by the Eighth Amendment must satisfy a two-prong test. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 

294, 298 (1991). First, a plaintiff must satisfy an objective test showing that “he is incarcerated 

under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. In 

determining whether a deprivation of a basic necessity is sufficiently serious to satisfy the 

objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, courts consider the circumstances, nature, 

and duration of the deprivation. See Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Second, the plaintiff must prove that the prison official inflicted the deprivation with a 

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” that is, with “deliberate indifference” to his health or safety. 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

Even with liberal construction, the allegations of the complaint do not state an Eighth 

Amendment claim. The situation described, while perhaps unpleasant and offensive to Neves, did 

not amount to a constitutional violation, as both the objective and subjective prongs are lacking. 

Neves allegedly had to wear an unlaundered uniform jersey for more than eight months, but his 

allegations also show that it was a jersey worn over other clothing, was worn only during his work 

shift. (And, if the inmate appeal response was correct, the “jersey” was actually more like a sports 

pinny than a shirt with sleeves.) The Supreme Court has recognized that “exposure of inmates to a 

serious, communicable disease” constitutes a substantial risk of harm for the purposes of an Eighth 

Amendment claim. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993). But Neves does not allege that 

the jersey came with a communicable disease on it, and the fact that nothing is alleged to have 

developed in the more than eight months he wore it suggests it was nothing more than malodorous

when he received it, which did not pose an objectively serious risk to his health or safety. Neves‟ 

Case 3:16-cv-02877-SI Document 3 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint also does not state that he was precluded from washing the jersey himself in his cell, in 

a shower, or on the yard when he was not on duty at an IAPW. The lack of an objectively serious 

condition also impacts the subjective prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis. Prison officials 

allegedly refused to help Neves when he complained, but his complaint was of a non-serious 

condition (i.e., a jersey that smelled of body odor and the fact that he had to wear the jersey (on 

the outside of his clothing) repeatedly without washing it). 

Although the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it cannot 

be said that leave to amend would be futile. There may be additional facts that Neves left out of 

the complaint that would elevate the situation from a mere unpleasantry into the realm of cruel and 

unusual punishment. Therefore, he will be granted leave to amend to allege facts, if he has them 

to show both prongs of an Eighth Amendment claim. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint no later than October 14, 2016, and must include the caption and civil case number 

used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is 

cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his claims, except that he 

does not need to allege any claim that has been dismissed without leave to amend. See Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Failure to file an amended 

complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02877-SI Document 3 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 4