Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02602/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02602-7/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

ROBERT P. BENYAMINI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2602 LKK GGH P

vs.

MENDOZA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. This order concerns the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations filed on June 2, 2010 (Dkt. No. 16). In

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has

conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Plaintiff's complaint names ten defendants, all corrections officers, and alleges

various theories of liability relating to a period of time from May 4, 2005 to May 14, 2005. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was sprayed with "o.c. spray," after which defendants denied plaintiff

with access to a shower or other means to decontaminate himself for this period. Plaintiff further

alleges that during this period he was deprived of time outside his cell, including time for

Case 2:09-cv-02602-LKK-AC Document 20 Filed 07/02/10 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

exercise, and of access to a television or radio. Although plaintiff's complaint further refers to a

cell extraction, plaintiff does not appear to bring a claim based on the extraction itself.

In an order filed March 2, 2010, the magistrate judge granted plaintiff in forma

pauperis status. In the course of so doing, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint. 

The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff had stated a colorable claim regarding denial of

plaintiff's requests to clean himself after being sprayed with o.c. spray. The magistrate judge

concluded that plaintiff had alleged the involvement of seven defendants in this denial:

defendants Mendoza, Brown, Baumberger, Paul, Leese, Formasi, and Northener. The magistrate

judge concluded that plaintiff's allegations regarding denial of time outside his cell, denial of

outdoor exercise, and denial of access to television and radio did not allege conduct rising to the

level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Finally, the magistrate judge concluded that the

complaint did not link the remaining three defendants, Hamilton, Ramirez and Hurtado, to any

the surviving claim regarding access to a shower or to any other colorable claim. The magistrate

judge therefore dismissed these three defendants, as well as the claims regarding denial of

outdoor or physical exercise and of access to a television or radio, with leave to file an amended

complaint within twenty-eight days of service of the March 2 order.

That time period elapsed, and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. On

June 2, 2010, the magistrate judge filed an order finding that service was appropriate on

defendants Mendoza, Brown, Baumberger, Paul, Leese, Formasi, and Northener regarding

plaintiff's claim about access to a shower. Also on June 2, 2010, the magistrate judge filed the

findings and recommendations at issue here, recommending dismissal of Hamilton, Ramirez and

Hurtado and the claims previously found to be inadequate. These recommendations were served

on plaintiff and contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to

the findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff objects solely to the dismissal of defendants Hamilton, Ramirez and

Case 2:09-cv-02602-LKK-AC Document 20 Filed 07/02/10 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

Hurtado. His objections state that these defendants also participated in the conduct underlying

plaintiff's surviving claim, in that they knew about plaintiff's situation yet personally refused to

allow plaintiff to shower. Plaintiff was previously instructed to file an amended complaint

explaining these officers’ roles in the surviving claim, yet plaintiff failed to do so. Nonetheless,

in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will grant plaintiff another chance to file an amended

complaint. 

As previously explained by the magistrate judge, the amended complaint must be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See Local Rule 220. Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Thus, the amended complaint must repeat the

allegations underlying plaintiff’s claim that defendants below violated his Eighth Amendment

rights by refusing his requests to be allowed to clean himself and finish decontaminating himself

after having been sprayed with o.c. spray by denying him access to a shower for eight or more

days, during the period of time from May 4, 2005, until May 14, 2005, and the amended

complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s claims regarding denial of outdoor or physical exercise and of access

to a television or radio for the period of May 4, 2005, until May 14, 2005 are dismissed.

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hamilton, Ramirez and Hurtado, are

dismissed, because the current complaint (as opposed to plaintiff’s opposition to the findings and

recommendations) does not allege how these defendants were involved in the acts underlying

plaintiff’s surviving claim. Plaintiff is again granted leave to file an amended complaint, as

explained above. Such a complaint must be filed within twenty-eight days of the date of this

order.

///

Case 2:09-cv-02602-LKK-AC Document 20 Filed 07/02/10 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

3. Thus, the court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 2, 2010

(Dkt. No. 16), except that the court further grants leave to file an amended complaint.

DATED: July 1, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02602-LKK-AC Document 20 Filed 07/02/10 Page 4 of 4