Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01175/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01175-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES TYLER ROOTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. CHERIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01175-CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:23-cv-01175-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/27/23 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

I. 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).

II. Allegations in the Complaint

At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff was an inmate at 

California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). He alleges that on December 10, 2019, 

defendant Cherian deliberately and maliciously closed his arm in a cell door causing him 

unnecessary pain. After being advised of his injury, defendants Cherian, Hanagan, and Masterson 

delayed requesting medical assistance for plaintiff for three and a half hours. These same 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during this time period. 

Plaintiff further alleges that defendants Williamson and Lynch failed to properly train 

their staff in matters of safety and security in their capacity as the building lieutenant and the 

prison warden. 

Based on these factual allegations, plaintiff contends that defendants violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights as well as committed various state law torts of assault/battery, negligence, the 

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and mental/emotional injury.

By way of relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 

III. Analysis

Having conducted the required screening with respect to plaintiff’s complaint, the court 

finds that plaintiff may proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against defendant 

Cherian as well as an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendants 

Cherian, Hanagan, and Masterson.

With respect to the other claims and defendants, the allegations do not amount to claims 

upon which plaintiff may proceed because plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a causal link 

between defendants Williamson and Lynch, who were acting in their supervisory capacity, and 

Case 2:23-cv-01175-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/27/23 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

the asserted constitutional violations. Furthermore, this court does not have supplemental 

jurisdiction over the state law tort claims because plaintiff does not allege compliance with the 

California Tort Claims Act. At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) proceed immediately on 

the Eighth Amendment claims identified above; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies in 

plaintiff’s complaint in an amended complaint. In considering whether to amend, the court 

advises plaintiff as follows:

Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their 

subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) 

(“In a § 1983 suit ... the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, 

each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding is only liable for his or her own 

misconduct.”). When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between 

the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged; that is, a 

plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either personally participated in or 

directed the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act 

to prevent them. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978).

This court has supplemental jurisdiction over any claims that are “part of the same case or 

controversy....” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, “once judicial power exists under § 1367(a), 

retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is discretionary” since 

primary responsibility for developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. Acri v. 

Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Plaintiff asserts a violation of 

California law, but plaintiff fails to plead compliance with the California Tort Claims Act.1 To 

properly allege any supplemental state law tort claim against defendants, plaintiff must present 

facts demonstrating compliance with the California Tort Claims Act, rather than simply 

conclusions suggesting as much. See State of California v. Superior Court of Kings County, 32 

Cal.4th 1234 (2004). Even state tort claims presented in a federal civil rights action may proceed 

1 California Government Code §§ 905.2 et seq. describes the procedure for filing a tort claim 

against state employees and entities.

Case 2:23-cv-01175-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/27/23 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

only if the claims were first presented to the state in compliance with this claim presentation 

requirement. See Kaim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988).

IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims for relief against the defendants, and 

some do not. You must decide if you want: (1) to proceed immediately on the Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim against defendant Cherian as well as the Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claim against defendants Cherian, Hanagan, and Masterson; or, 2) amend 

the complaint to fix the problems identified in this order with respect to the remaining claims and 

defendants. 

If you choose to file an amended complaint, pay particular attention to the legal standards 

attached to this order that may apply to your claims. An amended complaint should include:

1) The name of defendant(s);

2) The action(s) performed or failed to be performed by defendant(s);

3) The date or timeframe of the action(s);

4) How the action(s) caused injury to you; and,

5) The specific constitutional provision violated by defendant(s).

Once you decide how you want to proceed, you must complete the attached Notice of 

Election form by checking only one box and returning it to the court. When the court 

receives the Notice of Election, it will issue an order telling you what you need to do next. If you 

do not return this Notice, the court will order service of the complaint only on the claims found 

cognizable in this screening order and will dismiss the remaining claims and defendants pursuant 

to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 

Case 2:23-cv-01175-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/27/23 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

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff is granted 21 days within which to complete and return the attached form 

notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the claims identified in this order or file an 

amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his original complaint. If plaintiff 

does not return the form, this action will proceed on the claim described above. 

Dated: November 27, 2023

12/root1175.option

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01175-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/27/23 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES TYLER ROOTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. CHERIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-01175-CKD 

NOTICE OF ELECTION

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim 

against defendant Cherian as well as the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against 

defendants Cherian, Hanagan, and Masterson.

OR

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint.

DATED:

Plaintiff’s Signature

Case 2:23-cv-01175-CKD Document 7 Filed 11/27/23 Page 6 of 6