Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02927/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02927-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMADOR SERRANO, No. CIV S-09-2927-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 23). 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that

Case 2:09-cv-02927-FCD-CMK Document 28 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 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

2

claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,

1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names the following as defendants in the caption of the amended

complaint: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and the

California Correctional Center (“CCC”). In the body of the complaint plaintiff lists as

defendants the following: Fleshman and Youngblood. As to Fleshman, plaintiff alleges:

. . . Th officer had no concern or worries of not being placed in a safety

belt or harness on me for traveling purposes by law. Th officer negligence

and disregard, indifference for the safety and welfare of inmates is a gross

violation of civil rights. The officials violated my safety by going a

excessive speed that all most caused a collision with a other vehicle, the

official failed to give me a incident report of the accident with the

information of vehicle, the tel-camera on board footage of the accident of

the cause of my injuries and the lack of safety devices. . . . [sic].

As to Youngblood, plaintiff claims:

. . . The officer had failed the decent to warning me that it would best

cancel my appointment due vehicle not having proper safety devices to

transporting me in case of accident, as his sworn duty to advising me. The

officer also moved me and told me to get up after the accident in which

could have caused me more serious if I would have sustained a back

injury. The officer failed to call for a medical team, ambulance to check

my injuries or give a professional opinio to moving me, the negligence of

the most important policy consideration foreseeability of harm; as a

general principle a defendant owes a duty of care to all persons who are

foreseeable endanger by his conduct. . . . [sic]. 

Case 2:09-cv-02927-FCD-CMK Document 28 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff adds: “The deliberate indifference was underscored when the officers failed to write a

incident report . . . of the circumstances surrounding the accident and investigative report that

could satisfactorily explain why there was a near collision. . . .” [sic]. It appears that plaintiff’s

claims arise from an auto accident in April 2008.

II. DISCUSSION

First, as to defendants CDCR and CCC, such defendants are immune from suit, as

explained in the court’s May 7, 2010, order. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978)

(per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). 

As to defendant Fleshman, plaintiff appears to allege that this defendant was

negligent for not requiring plaintiff to wear seatbelts while he was being driven from one place to

another. Alleged negligence is an insufficient basis for liability under § 1983. See e.g. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). In particular, plaintiff has not alleged the necessary element of

deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

As to defendant Youngblood, plaintiff alleges that he “failed to call for a medical

team, ambulance to check my injuries or give a professional opinio to moving. . . .” To the

extent plaintiff claims that Youngblood was negligent for moving him after the accident without

obtaining medical clearance to do so. As discussed above, such an allegation of negligence does

not support § 1983 liability. To the extent plaintiff alleges that Youngblood was deliberately

indifferent to plaintiff’s injuries by not calling for a “medical team, ambulance,” documents

attached to plaintiff’s complaint clearly indicate that he was in fact provided medical treatment

for injuries sustained in the accident. Plaintiff does not claim that Youngblood’s conduct or lack

thereof resulted in any delay which caused further injury. Where delay is alleged, however, the

prisoner must also demonstrate that the delay led to further injury. McGuckin v. Smith, 974

F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992). 

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-02927-FCD-CMK Document 28 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 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

4

Finally, with respect to plaintiff’s allegations that defendants failed to provide him

with documentation and other evidence relating to the auto accident, the court is unaware of any

constitutional provision or federal statute requiring such disclosure, and plaintiff does not cite to

any. Therefore, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of constitutional or federal law as would

provide a basis for liability under § 1983. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed

and that all pending motions be denied as moot. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 27, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-02927-FCD-CMK Document 28 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 4