Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00340/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00340-3/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

Plaintiff also indicates he has sent the court a change of address. The court has no 1

change of address on file. As far as the court is aware, Plaintiff is currently at being housed at

CSP Sacramento. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. JEFFERSON No. CIV S-10-0340-MCE CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

J.R. WEAVER, 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 are Plaintiff’s objections to the undersigned findings

and recommendations recommending defendant Agguirre be dismissed from this action.

In his objections, Plaintiff appears to be claiming that defendant Agguirre was

also directly involved in the activities he complains about, including placing the razor blades in

his food and harassing him. He also continues to complain about the destruction or confiscation

of his property.1

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 14 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 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

2

As Plaintiff has already been made aware, if a state has a post-deprivation remedy,

there is no cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the destruction of the property. See

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 129-32 (1990). His claims regarding his property are therefore

insufficient to state a claim against any of the defendants. However, his other claims relate to his

treatment and safety. To the extent he is claiming defendant Agguirre was personally involved in

those claims, Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint to make

those claims clear. 

However, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should keep the

following in mind. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. 

See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or

omits to perform an act which he 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). Vague and

conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations

are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the

plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged

constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the

prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits 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). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v.

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 14 Filed 08/06/10 Page 2 of 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

3

“food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy,

801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only

when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious

such that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2)

subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of

inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison

official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id. Allegations of verbal harassment do

not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment unless it is alleged that the harassment was

“calculated to . . . cause [the prisoner] psychological damage.” Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830

F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996),

amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Under these principles, prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to

protect inmates from physical abuse. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250-51 (9th Cir.

1982); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. Liability exists only when two requirements are met: (1)

objectively, the prisoner was incarcerated under conditions presenting a substantial risk of

serious harm; and (2) subjectively, prison officials knew of and disregarded the risk. See Farmer,

511 U.S. at 837. The very obviousness of the risk may suffice to establish the knowledge

element. See Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995). Prison officials are not

liable, however, if evidence is presented that they lacked knowledge of a safety risk. See Farmer,

511 U.S. at 844. The knowledge element does not require that the plaintiff prove that prison

officials know for a certainty that the inmate’s safety is in danger, but it requires proof of more

than a mere suspicion of danger. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Finally, the plaintiff must show that prison officials disregarded a risk. Thus, where prison

officials actually knew of a substantial risk, they are not liable if they took reasonable steps to

respond to the risk, even if harm ultimately was not averted. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. 

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 14 Filed 08/06/10 Page 3 of 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

4

Finally, Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Therefore, if plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior

pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An

amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

However, the court has already determined that Plaintiff’s complaint appears to

otherwise state cognizable claims, so no amended complaint is necessary to go forward with this

action against defendants Weaver and Doowly. Plaintiff need only file an amended complaint if

he wishes to try to state a claim against defendant Agguirre. If no amended complaint is filed

within the time allowed therefor, the undersigned will issue amended findings and

recommendations that defendant Agguirre be dismissed. Plaintiff has already been provided the

necessary service forms in order for the US Marshal to serve defendants Weaver and Doowly. 

He has not, however, returned them to this court. If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended

complaint, but wishes to continue in this action against defendants Weaver and Doowly, he will

be required to return the service forms in a timely manner. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations that defendant Agguirre be dismissed

from this action (Doc. 11) are vacated; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 14 Filed 08/06/10 Page 4 of 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

5

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

service of this order.

DATED: August 5, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00340-MCE -CMK Document 14 Filed 08/06/10 Page 5 of 5