Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05439/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05439-1/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

CHRIS EDDIE GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANCHEZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5439 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION (Doc. 1)

 Chris Eddie Greene (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 17, 2004, alleging that Defendants E. Sanchez,

Warden, Captain J. Leeper, Captain D. Folks, Lieutenant J.D. Miles, Sergeant Flores, Doctor

Castillo and Psychologist Bradley Hartung were deliberately indifferent to his health in violation

of the Eighth Amendment. 

On July 12, 2005, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend finding only

the Eighth Amendment medical claim against Defendants Miles and Castillo cognizable. The

remaining claims against the other Defendants were not found to be cognizable. Thus, the Court

granted Plaintiff time to file an Amended Complaint or inform the Court that he wished to

proceed on the cognizable claims only. 

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 07/28/05 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

On July 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intent to Proceed on Cognizable Claims

wherein Plaintiff states he does not wish to file an Amended Complaint but wishes to proceed

only on the claims found cognizable by the Court. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

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

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on or about May 18, 2002, he was placed in the California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF) acute hospital on suicide watch. On May 21, 2002, Plaintiff

was informed by two guards that he was being released back into administrative segregation. 

Plaintiff explained that he was suicidal and so the officers left. Later, Lt. Miles approached

Plaintiff and instructed him to cuff-up. Plaintiff explained that he was suicidal. According to

Plaintiff, Lt. Miles left and contacted Chief Deputy Warden Sanchez and Captain J. Leeper. 

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 07/28/05 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

Miles was authorized to perform a cell extraction. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Castillo approved

his release back into administrative segregation and that Dr. Hartung told Lt. Miles that Plaintiff

had been discharged as well. During the extraction, Sgt. Flores deployed the pepper spray. 

Plaintiff was placed into a cell where within thirty minutes, he attempted suicide by hanging. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health and

medical needs and is seeking monetary relief. 

1. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

2. Eight Amendment Claim

Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical

abuse. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1250-51; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). To

establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were

“deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmates’s safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

at 834. The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First,

the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan,

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 07/28/05 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

511 U.S. at 834(citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official

must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

In this case, although Plaintiff alleges that all of the Defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his mental health needs, he only states a cognizable claim for relief against

Defendants Miles and Castillo. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff informed Defendant Miles

that he was suicidal and yet he was discharged to administrative segregation where he attempted

suicide. In addition, Dr. Castillo approved Plaintiff’s discharge from suicide watch. Thus,

Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently allege that Defendant Miles and Dr. Castillo knew of and

disregarded an excessive risk to his health and safety. 

Plaintiff does not state a claim for relief against Defendants Sanchez, Leeper, Folks,

Flores, or Hartung. The Complaint alleges Defendant Miles contacted Defendants Sanchez and

Leeper and obtained authorization for a cell extraction. However, nothing in the Complaint

alleges that Defendants Sanchez and Leeper knew of and disregarded a risk to Plaintiff’s health. 

With regard to Defendant Flores, Plaintiff only alleges that he is the individual who

pepper sprayed him, however, he fails to link Defendant Flores to any act or omission giving rise

to his Eighth Amendment Claim of deliberate indifference. Similarly, the Complaint references

Defendant Hartung only in the context that Defendant Hartung told Defendant Miles that

Plaintiff had been discharged. Finally, the complaint makes absolutely no reference to Defendant

Folks. 

In addition, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants Sanchez and Leeper knew of

disregarded the potential circumstances of Plaintiff’s release into administrative segregation. 

Accordingly, the Court finds the Complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against

Defendant Miles and Dr. Castillo. However, it does not state an Eighth Amendment claim

against any of the other Defendants. 

3. Supervisory Liability

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to hold Defendants Sanchez and Leeper responsible as

supervisors, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 07/28/05 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

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To

state a claim for relief under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, plaintiff

must allege some facts that would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally

participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed

to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy

‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional

violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted);

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are

broad, some facts must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v.

Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that defendants personally participated in the

alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation

of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v.

Black at 646. 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim

against Defendants Miles and Castillo. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any

other cognizable claims for relief against any of the remaining Defendants. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Eighth Amendment claim

against Defendants E. Sanchez, Warden, Captain J. Leeper, Captain D. Folks, Sergeant Flores,

and Psychologist Bradley Hartung, and the Supervisory Liability claim against Defendants

Sanchez and Leeper be DISMISSED from the action and that the action proceed on Plaintiff’s

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs against Defendants

Lieutenant J.D. Miles and Doctor Castillo. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 07/28/05 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

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with

a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05439-AWI-LJO Document 16 Filed 07/28/05 Page 6 of 6