Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00869-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRAISURE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 

ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 

SECTION 1983

(Doc. 13)

TWENTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Fraisure Smith, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 10, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. '

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 19, 2014, and on October 10, 

2014, the Court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on November 10, 2014, is pending before the 

Court.

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in 

part, if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 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

2

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

“Courts in this circuit have an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of pro 

se litigants, especially when they are civil rights claims by inmates,” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 

F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013), and pro se complaints “may only be dismissed ‘if it appears 

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 

entitle him to relief,’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)). “This rule relieves pro se litigants from the strict 

application of procedural rules and demands that courts not hold missing or inaccurate legal 

terminology or muddled draftsmanship against them.” Blaisdell, 729 F.3d at 1241. However, the 

plaintiff must still set forth sufficient factual allegations, tempered by his pro se status, to support 

a plausible claim for relief; the mere possibility of misconduct will not suffice. See Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California, and 

he brings this action for monetary damages against Cliff Allenby and Audrey King, Executive 

Directors, Department of State Hospitals; Pam Ahlin, former Executive Director, Department of 

State Hospitals; Robert Withrow, M.D., Executive Medical Director, Department of State 

Hospitals; Stephen Mayberg, former Director, Department of State Hospitals; Katherine 

Warburton, M.D., Deputy Director of Clinical Operations, Department of State Hospitals; Jeffrey 

A. Beard, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”);

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Matthew Cate, former Secretary, CDCR; Fresno County Board of Supervisors; and Does 1-100. 

Plaintiff alleges both personal capacity and official capacity claims.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mayberg “had” him transferred to CSH, which is 500 yards 

away from Pleasant Valley State Prison and is on state property under CDCR authority. (Doc. 13, 

2

nd Amend. Comp., court record p. 6.) Plaintiff alleges that the Secretary of CDCR, the Executive 

and Deputy Directors of the Department of State Hospitals, and the Executive and Medical 

Directors of the Department of State Hospitals at Coalinga are obligated to inform individuals in 

their custody of any situations which pose a serious health care problem and potentially affect 

one’s quality of life or cause serious injury or death.

Plaintiff alleges that he is African-American and suffers from type-2 diabetes, 

osteoarthritis, and cancer, factors which allegedly place him at high risk for contracting Valley 

Fever (Coccidioidomycosis), a sometimes fatal fungal disease which poses a serious health care 

concern. Plaintiff alleges that when he was transferred to CSH in August 2010, he was neither 

informed of the dangers nor informed of preventative measures. In November or December 2011, 

Plaintiff became ill and misdiagnosed with pneumonia by Dr. Hamerick. For four days, Plaintiff 

was treated for pneumonia and his condition worsened. Plaintiff was subsequently taken to 

Coalinga Regional Medical Center for emergency treatment. By that time, Plaintiff was fighting 

for his life, and his temperature at times reached 105 degrees. Plaintiff was treated for pneumonia 

and Valley Fever until tests could confirm or rule out a diagnosis. Ultimately, the University of 

California, Davis Medical Center diagnosed Plaintiff with Valley Fever based on samples sent to 

it.

Plaintiff alleges that in 2004, Renee Kanan, Deputy Director of Health Care Services, 

wrote a memo to Health Care Services Managers, staff, and CDCR officials (1) addressing Valley 

Fever and its origin in the soil, and (2) identifying Central Valley prisons as located in areas that 

host the fungus. In 2006, John Galgiani, M.D., provided a report to J. Clark Kelso stating that 

prison officials should be acting as if facing a situation where lives were at substantial risk and 

that the only reasonable public health decision was to cease placing prisoners in Pleasant Valley 

State Prison and Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that since the report was made available to 

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 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

4

the prison health care receiver (Kelso), “it is not a stretch of the imagination to assume” that the 

report was made available to CDCR’s Secretary and to all of the defendants since CSH is on state 

land. (Id., court record p. 11.) Despite this, Defendants failed to provide any information to 

newly arriving detainees regarding the dangers of the area, Valley Fever, or preventative 

measures.

B. Valley Fever Claims

As in his first amended complaint, Plaintiff appears to be relying on two theories to

demonstrate the violation of his constitutional rights by state officials: exposure to a dangerous 

condition without adequate warning and deficient medical care. 

1. Exposure to Dangerous Condition

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to treatment more considerate than that afforded 

pretrial detainees or convicted criminals. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Plaintiff’s right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the 

substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315, 102 

S.Ct. 2452 (1982). 

A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing of his liberty 

interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. Plaintiff is “entitled to 

more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires only that courts ensure that 

professional judgment was exercised. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22. A “decision, if made by a 

professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision by the 

professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or 

standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a 

judgment.” Id. at 322-23; compare Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243-44 

(9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting the Youngberg standard and applying the deliberate indifference 

standard to a pretrial detainee’s right to medical care, and noting that pretrial detainees, who are 

confined to ensure presence at trial, are not similarly situated to those civilly committed). The 

professional judgment standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that required in ordinary 

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 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

5

tort cases for a finding of conscious indifference amounting to gross negligence.” Ammons v. 

Washington Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 

S.Ct. 2379 (2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

As an initial matter, Plaintiff is seeking damages and he is limited to suing Defendants in 

their personal, or individual, capacities,

1

Brown v. Oregon Dept. of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 988-89 

(9th Cir. 2014); Aholelei v. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007), which 

requires he allege facts linking each defendant’s actions or omissions to a violation of his rights, 

e.g., Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013); Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. 

and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 

915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). There must be a causal connection between the violation alleged 

and each defendant’s conduct. Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977; Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 

693 F.3d at 915-16. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s dangerous condition claim fails for two reasons. First, the 

claim is premised on the location of CSH being so inherently dangerous due to the presence of

Coccidioides immitis spores in the soil that his transfer there amounts to a constitutional violation. 

The Court rejects this premise in light of the recent decision issued in the Hines case by the 

Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, to whom this case is assigned. Hines v. Youssef, No. 1:13-cv-00357-

AWI-JLT, 2015 WL 164215, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) (rejecting African-American 

asthmatic prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim arising from exposure to and contraction of Valley 

Fever); accord Williams v. Biter, No. 1:14 cv 02076 AWI GSA PC 2015 WL 1830770, at *3 

(E.D.Cal. Apr. 9, 2015); contra Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-430-LJO-SAB, 2014 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 107548 (E.D.Cal. Jul. 25, 2014). Even applying the lower “professional judgment” 

standard rather than the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard, Plaintiff’s claim 

necessarily requires acceptance of his premise that detention in the Central Valley rises to the level 

of a constitutional violation, despite the fact that residing in the Central Valley is a risk very 

 

1

In response to the Court’s second screening order addressing his personal capacity claims, Plaintiff added official 

capacity claims. Official capacity claims against former state officials are barred as a matter of law, Rounds v. 

Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 166 F.3d 1032, 1036 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999), and Plaintiff is precluded from pursuing 

his damages claims against current state officials in their official capacities, Brown, 751 F.3d at 988-89; Aholelei, 488 

F.3d at 1147.

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/29/15 Page 5 of 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

6

clearly tolerated by free citizens, regardless of race or medical condition. Hines, 2015 WL 

164215, at *4. “An individual who lives out of custody . . . anywhere in the Southern San Joaquin 

Valley is at relatively high risk exposure to Coccidioides immitis spores,” and “[u]nless there is 

something about a prisoner’s conditions of confinement that raises the risk of exposure 

substantially above the risk experienced by the surrounding communities, it cannot be reasoned 

that the prisoner is involuntarily exposed to a risk society would not tolerate.” Id.

Second, even assuming that transfer to CSH might suffice to underpin a constitutional 

claim, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the named defendants’ involvement remain speculative at 

best. Section 1983 does not permit respondeat superior, or vicarious, liability and Plaintiff’s 

claim must be premised on the defendants’ personal involvement or other specific causal 

connection; speculative allegations regarding knowledge, actions, and/or omissions do not suffice. 

Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977; Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915-16. For these 

reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under section 1983 based on a 

dangerous condition theory. 

2. Medical Care

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is also devoid of any allegations giving rise to a 

viable claim for relief arising out of the failure to provide proper medical care.2Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. The fact that Plaintiff contracted Valley Fever and was initially 

misdiagnosed with pneumonia does not suffice to support a claim for violation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights. See Ammons, 648 F.3d at 1029. There is also no causal connection between 

the named defendants and the medical care Plaintiff received. Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977; Lemire, 

726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915-16. 

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be 

granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously provided with two opportunities to amend 

 

2 Unlike Plaintiff’s dangerous condition claim, there is no question that the failure to provide adequate treatment for a 

detainee’s medical needs supports a claim under section 1983.

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/29/15 Page 6 of 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

7

and based on the nature of the deficiencies, further amendment is not warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 

698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

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

twenty (20) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 14 Filed 06/29/15 Page 7 of 7