Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00763-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DAVID TOWNSEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

MADERA COUNTY DEPT PROBATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00763-LJO-SAB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 6)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 19, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The action 

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302. On July 2, 2015, this Court entered an order consolidating Townsel v. Madera County 

Behavioral Health Services, No. 1:15-cv-00764-AWI-GSA, with this action. (ECF No. 4). This 

Order addresses both the complaint filed in Case No. 1:15-cv-00763 LJO SAB and the complaint 

filed in Case No. 1:15-cv-00764 AWI GSA.

1. F&Rs Recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims in Original Complaint filed in 

Case No. 1:15-cv-00763 LJO SAB.

On May 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”) 

recommending dismissal of certain claims and providing Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an 

amended complaint. The F&Rs were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

to the F&Rs were to be filed within thirty days (30) days from the date of service. The period for 

filing objections has now passed and no objections have been filed. 

Case 1:15-cv-00763-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the F&Rs

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The original complaint filed in Case No. 

1:15-cv-00763 LJO SAB is therefore DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE 

EIGTH AMENDMENT AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAIMS, BUT WITHOUT LEAVE 

TO AMEND AS TO HIS CLAIM CONCERNING POST RELEASE SUPERVISION.

2. Complaint filed in Case No. No. 1:15-cv-00764-AWI-GSA.

As mentioned above, on July 2, 2015, this Court entered an order consolidating Townsel 

v. Madera County Behavioral Health Services, No. 1:15-cv-00764-AWI-GSA, with this action. 

(ECF No. 4.) Accordingly, this Court now has jurisdiction to address the Complaint filed in Case 

No. 1:15-cv-00764-AWI-GSA.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must dismiss a case if at any time the Court 

determines that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In 

determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading standard 

used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 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). 

Accordingly, the Court shall screen the complaint filed in the consolidated case. 

Plaintiff brings the action against Mark L. Duarte alleging a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment because Mr. Duarte stated that Plaintiff had unstable psychotic markers due to not 

being on his psychiatric medications from June through August of 2013. Townsel v. Madera 

County Behavioral Health Services, No. 1:15-cv-00764-AWI-GSA, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s 

probation officer reported that Plaintiff had not reported to the Probation Department during this 

same period, was not attending his mental health counseling, his whereabouts were unknown and 

Plaintiff was a danger to the community. Plaintiff was referred for a violation of probation on 

August 28, 2013. On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff was seen by the Madera County Department 

of Corrections Mental Health Nurse who reported that Plaintiff requested no psychiatric 

medication for his schizophrenia, and found that he was not suicidal and no psychotic markers 

were reported. 

Case 1:15-cv-00763-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 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

27

28

3

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 

2006). To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, 

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts from which the Court can infer that 

Mr. Duarte violated the Eighth Amendment by reporting his psychiatric findings regarding 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Mr. Duarte and the complaint filed originally in

Case No. No. 1:15-cv-00764-AWI-GSA is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

3. Leave to Amend.

Plaintiff shall file a single amended complaint raising claims he originally raised in the 

two separate complaints addressed above. Plaintiff is advised that his amended complaint must 

include sufficient factual allegations against each named defendant to link the individual 

defendant to the acts or failures to act that he asserts violated his federal rights. “[A] complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint stops short of the line 

between probability and the possibility of relief where the facts pled are merely consistent with a 

defendant’s liability. Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more 

than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint has not shown that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief. Id. 

Further, while the court is to accept all “well pleaded factual allegations” in the complaint 

as true, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, it is not bound to accept as true labels, conclusions, formulaic 

recitations of the elements of a cause of action or legal conclusions couched as factual 

allegations, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In his amended 

complaint Plaintiff must include sufficient factual content for the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff shall state as briefly as possible the facts of his case, 

describing how each defendant is involved. Plaintiff shall separate his claims, so that it is clear 

what his claims are and who the defendants involved are. Further, for each claim, Plaintiff shall 

Case 1:15-cv-00763-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 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

27

28

4

clearly and succinctly set forth the facts to state the acts or failure to act by each Defendant that 

led to a knowing violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. With regard to the complaint filed in Case No. 1:15-cv-00763-LJO-SAB (ECF 

No. 1, filed May 19, 2015)

A. The F&Rs filed May 27, 2015 are ADOPTED IN FULL;

B. Plaintiff’s claim that he has been sentenced to a period of post release 

supervision is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 

C. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and double jeopardy claims are 

DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

2. With regard to the Complaint filed originally in Case No. 1:15-cv-00764-AWIGSA, ECF No. 1 (filed May 19, 2015), Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

single amended complaint addressing any claims for which leave to amend has 

been granted. Any such complaint should be filed in case no. 1:15-cv-00763-LJOSAB ONLY. 

6. Failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order will result in 

this action being dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00763-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 4 of 4