Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01326/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01326-5/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

GLENN MARTINEZ-CASTRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O ELIAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01326-BAM-PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed October 13, 2015, filed 

on response to the October 2, 2015, order screening the first amended complaint. (ECF No. 30.) 

I.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

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

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Centinela State Prison, brings this lawsuit against Defendant 

correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Wasco State Prison, where the events at issue 

occurred. In the October 13, 2015, second amended complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants 

Case 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Correctional Officer (C/O) Elias and C/O Ward.1 Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that Defendants were deliberately 

indifference to serious medical needs.

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on January 25, 2013, he and five 

other general population (GP) inmates were sent to Receiving and Release to await bus transfer 

to Calipatria State Prison. The inmates were placed in a “regular” holding tank. At some point, 

Defendant C/O Ward came to the cell door and told the inmates that they were being disruptive 

and loud, and that if they continued to be loud, he would place them in the cell by the metal 

detector. Plaintiff “confronted” C/O Ward, asking him if the tank he referred to was a protective 

custody tank. Ward informed the inmates that they were being moved to the tank he referred to. 

Plaintiff asked Ward “if that was a protective custody tank and why were we being placed in the 

obvious (s.n.y.) labeled cell?” (Am. Compl, p. 1 of narrative attachment). Ward told Plaintiff 

that he and the other inmates were going to be placed in the other tank because they were being 

too loud. Plaintiff alleged that “all general population inmates were placed inside the (sny) 

holding tank by Defendant Ward, with protective custody inmates already inside which resulted 

in a group disturbance between (general population) and (protective custody) inmates.” (Id.) 

Defendant C/O Elias, along with ten other correctional officers, responded to the 

disturbance. Defendant Elias instructed all of the inmates to “get down.” Plaintiff, along with 

all of the other inmates, lay face down in a “eagle-spread” position. Plaintiff alleged that at that 

point, the following occurred:

Correctional Officers then opened the holding cell door; over (10) 

officers entered with hand held metal batons fully extended, 

screaming at all inmates running in the holding tank Defendant 

Elias stating, “this isn’t B-yard, bitches,” (B yard is a special 

needs yard), while immediately physically assaulting plaintiff and 

all other (GP) inmates with their metal batons, multiple times over 

plaintiff’s head, torso, legs, and continuously on the (left knee) 

plaintiff’s left knee is still badly damaged. Various correctional 

officers also assaulted plaintiff repeated times. After the two to 

three minute assault from Defendant M. Elias, and the other 

 

1

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff named the following individuals as Defendants: Sergeant Garlo; C/O 

Elias; C/O Ward; Registered Nurse (RN) B. Johnson; RN Abella; Warden J. Katavich; CDCR Director M. Stainer. 

Case 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 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

3

officers, plaintiff and all other (GP) inmates were then handcuffed 

picked up, pushed and thrown against cell bars while and the 

ground while being escorted to another area. . . 

(Id. p. 1, 2.) 

 

The inmates were taken to one-man holding cages, and put in the holding cages, 2 men to 

a cage. Plaintiff alleged that he was “violently” shoved into the cage by Defendant Elias. 

Defendant Elias and other officers began questioning the inmates while they were in the holding 

cages. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Elias and the other officers left the area and returned. 

Defendant Elias apologized, stating that “we had no idea you all were (GP) inmates, we want to 

apologize to all of you.” C/O Elias repeatedly apologized to the inmates and directed officers to 

move the inmates to the holding cages they were originally in. Defendants Elias and Garlo 

“began to explain to us the mistake of placing us in a (SNY) labeled holding tank was not 

intentional.” They also informed the inmates that they would not receive a disciplinary charge. 

At that point, the buses that were to transport the inmates to Calipatria State Prison arrived. 

Plaintiff alleges that both Garlo and Elias “tried rushing Plaintiff and all other inmates to putting 

on our jumpsuits and to get on the bus and leave as soon as possible.” (Id.) 

II.

DISCUSSION

On October 2, 2015, an order was entered, finding that the first amended complaint stated 

a claim for relief against Defendant Elias on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force. The Court 

noted that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against any other Defendant. 

As to the remaining Defendants, the Court found that Plaintiff had not specifically 

alleged any facts indicating that the remaining Defendants subjected Plaintiff to excessive force. 

Plaintiff alleged that approximately ten officers entered the holding tank, and subjected Plaintiff 

and the other inmates to excessive force. Plaintiff was advised that he may not hold Defendants

liable simply by alleging facts indicating that they were present. In order to hold an individual 

defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant and explain how that defendant 

acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. 

Case 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 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

4

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

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not lump “defendants” together. Plaintiff was specifically advised 

that must identify each individual defendant by name and allege conduct as to each individual 

defendant that caused injury to Plaintiff. 

In the October 13, 2015, third amended complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants C/O 

Elias and C/O Ward. Regarding Defendant Elias, Plaintiff re-states the allegations of the first

amended complaint. Plaintiff also re-states allegations regarding other Defendants that were 

named in the first amended complaint, but not in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff 

specifically names C/O Ward as a Defendant, but only alleges that Defendant Ward “subjected 

[Plaintiff] to excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment with deliberate indifference.” 

Plaintiff fails to charge Defendant Ward with any specific conduct, or allege any facts in addition 

to those included in the first amended complaint. 

Plaintiff is again advised that, in order to state a claim against Defendant Ward, he must 

allege facts specific to Defendant Ward. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that Defendant 

Ward subjected Plaintiff to excessive force, as stated in the October 2, 2015, order dismissing the 

first amended complaint. The Court will provide Plaintiff one opportunity to file a third 

amended complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to file a third amended complaint, the Court will order 

service of process on Defendant Elias on Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force, and dismiss all 

remaining claims and Defendants. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The October 13, 2015, second amended complaint states a claim for excessive force 

against Defendant Elias. The second amended complaint does not state any other claims for 

relief. The Court will provide Plaintiff with one further 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 may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 

unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Case 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/22/15 Page 4 of 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

5

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding 

only on the claims identified in this order as cognizable, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in 

writing, and the Court will dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants, and will forward to 

Plaintiff one summons and one USM 285 form for completion and return. Upon receipt of the 

forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process.

If Plaintiff opts to amend, his complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must 

state what each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and 

focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are 

alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes 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 and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All 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. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the

 Court in this order, or

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/22/15 Page 5 of 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

6

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendant Elias for 

excessive use of physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will direct service of process

on Defendant Elias and will dismiss the remaining claims and Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01326-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 10/22/15 Page 6 of 6