Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01246/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01246-4/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

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WITCHER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01246-OWW-DLB-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED. 

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

(Doc. 10)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 30, 2005. The court

dismissed the complaint with leave with to amend on September 18, 2006. Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint on October 18, 2006.

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). 

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 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

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 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. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

The events at issue in this action allegedly occurred at California Correctional Instituion,

where plaintiff was previously incarcerated. Plaintiff names Chief Deputy Warden Winette;

Associate Warden Witcher, Captain Meadors, Correctional Lieutenants Galvan, Sampson and

Traynham; Correctional Sergeants Mack, Reed and Bouville; and Correctional Officers Granillo,

Reed, Duran, Peterson, Bowman, Cotton, Julie B., Jordan, Lopez and Jackson as defendants.

Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages.

Plaintiff alleges that from June 5, 2002 to March 27, 2003, he was kept in filthy conditions

including being forced to sleep in the nude on the cold floor, being housed in a cell where the

average temperature was forty degrees and in close proximity to human waste, and being denied

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 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

toiletries. Plaintiff alleges these conditions violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants had direct knowledge of these unconstitutional conditions and were

negligent because they failed to take appropriate remedial action. As a result, Plaintiff suffered

sleeplessness, muscle cramps, body chills, and lower back and neck pain. He is seeking

compensatory and punitive damages.

C. Discussion

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.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights and his due process

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being

deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

556 (1974), and “cover[s] a substantive sphere as well, ‘barring certain government actions

regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’” County of Sacramento v.

Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 840 (1998) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). “‘The

touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.’”

Id. at 845 (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974)). “[T]he substantive component

of the Due Process Clause is violated by executive action only when it can properly be characterized

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 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

as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.” Id. at 847 (quoting Collins v. Harker

Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128 (1992)). “[T]he due process guarantee does not entail a body of

constitutional law imposing liability whenever someone cloaked with state authority causes harm.”

Id. at 848. “[T]he Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability

for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process.”

Id. at 849. However, “[t]o establish a violation of substantive due process . . . , a plaintiff is

ordinarily required to prove that a challenged government action was clearly arbitrary and

unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.

Where a particular amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against

a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of

substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing a plaintiff’s claims.” Patel v. Penman, 103

F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations, internal quotations, and brackets omitted), cert. denied, 117

S. Ct. 1845 (1997); County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998). 

In this case, the Eighth Amendment “provides [the] explicit textual source of constitutional

protection . . . .” Patel, 103 F.3d at 874. Therefore, the Eighth Amendment rather than the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs plaintiff’s claims. To constitute cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).

Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with

food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id.; Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801

F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Where a

prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of confinement, prison officials may be

held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.”

Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Plaintiff was advised in the court’s last order that 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. Plaintiff’s amended compliant fails to articulate

specifically how these conditions violated his Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. Further,

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 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

while plaintiff groups the defendants together and makes broad allegations that the defendants acted

with deliberate indifference by promoting unconstitutional conditions and policies, he fails to

articulate any acts or omissions sufficient to establish what defendant, if any, violated his

constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff was also previously advised that under section 1983, liability may not be imposed

on supervisory personnel for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior.

When the named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between the defendant 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 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must

allege some facts indicating that the defendant 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). 

In this instance, plaintiff has not alleged any facts that support a claim that defendants acted

with deliberate indifference toward plaintiff. Similarly, plaintiff has not indicated how any of the

defendants knew of the violations and failed to prevent them, or what specific policies, if any, were

deficient resulting in constitutional violations. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff’s

allegations fail to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for a violation of the Eighth

Amendment. Similarly, because plaintiff has not alleged any facts that link the named defendants

to conduct that can be characterized as conscience shocking, and because plaintiff’s claims would

be more appropriately addressed under an Eighth Amendment challenge, the court finds that

plaintiff’s allegations fail to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 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

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain any claims upon which

relief may be granted under section 1983 or state law. Plaintiff was previously notified of the

deficiencies in claim but was unable to cure them. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that this action be dismissed as follows for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

1. Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims be dismissed, with prejudice.

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 thirty (30)

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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01246-AWI -DLB Document 16 Filed 05/10/07 Page 6 of 6