Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134-4/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON E. MORRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JENNINGS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01134 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 8, 2013, plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint. 

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

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 12 Filed 06/13/14 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

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 127 S. 

Ct. at 1965. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 

allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and 

resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

I. Original Complaint 

 In his original complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was served food under unsanitary 

conditions between September 2007 and June 2010 by prison guards at California State PrisonSacramento (“CSP-Sac”). Plaintiff further alleged that defendants refused to wear hairnets, failed 

to cover the food, left the food out on railings, and let their sweat fall into the food. When 

plaintiff reminded defendants to cover the food or to wear a hairnet, they spoke harshly to him in 

response. As a result of the unsanitary food, plaintiff claimed that he had to see a doctor more 

than once due to stomach problems. 

 This court found that plaintiff had failed to state a colorable Eighth Amendment violation 

because he failed to link the alleged food problems to his doctor visits for stomach problems. The 

court dismissed plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Whitted, Spangler, and Lee used foul language 

when plaintiff asked them to wear a hairnet or cover plaintiff’s food because verbal harassment 

alone is not sufficient to state a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claim 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 12 Filed 06/13/14 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

of retaliation failed for the same reason since plaintiff did not identify any adverse action by 

defendants other than their harsh words. 

II. First Amended Complaint 

 In this complaint, plaintiff names twenty-five prison guards at CSP-Sac who served food 

under unsanitary conditions by refusing to wear a hairnet and by not covering the food “every 

single day of every single month or 24/7 from September 2007 until June 2010.” ECF No. 11 at 

3-4. When plaintiff reminded the guards that they were supposed to wear hairnets he was 

“ignored, cussed out, [or] talked real bad too....” Id. at 5. Due to the unsanitary food conditions 

plaintiff alleges that he had to see the doctor due to stomach problems and was told by the doctor 

that the pain he suffered was because of something he had eaten. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff further 

alleges that the only food he ate was the food the guards were serving. Id. at 6. Without 

identifying which defendants retaliated against him for filing 602 complaints about the food, 

plaintiff alleges that the guards “would repeatedly search and tear-up the cage plaintiff occupied” 

which served no penological interest. Id. at 7. Plaintiff also alleges that he was retaliated against 

by not being allowed to go out to yard or religious services on various occasions in 2009 and 

2010 and that when he asked an unidentified tower guard why this was occurring plaintiff was 

told that “my brothers told you to stop filing 602’s.” Id. at 7. 

III. Legal Standards and Analysis 

 At the outset, the court notes that plaintiff’s verbal harassment claim will be addressed in 

a separate order issued this same date. 

A. Legal Standards for Inadequate Food 

 Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the Eighth Amendment. Keenan v. 

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996). While prison food need not be tasty or aesthetically 

pleasing, it must be adequate to maintain health. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 

1993). “The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, 

while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.” Id. (citing Hamm v. DeKalb 

County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1096 (1986); see also 

George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A] single incident of unintended food 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 12 Filed 06/13/14 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

poisoning, whether suffered by one or many prisoners at an institution, does not constitute a 

violation of the constitutional rights of the affected prisoners.”); Islam v. Jackson, 782 F. Supp. 

1111, 1114–15 (E.D.Va.1992) (serving one meal contaminated with maggots and meals under 

unsanitary conditions for thirteen days was not cruel and unusual punishment, even though 

inmate suffered symptoms of food poisoning on one occasion); Bennett v. Misner, 2004 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 19568* at 63, 2004 WL 2091473 (D. Or., Sept.17, 2004) (“Neither isolated instances 

of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated 

with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”) 

 B. Analysis of Eight Amendment Claim for Unsanitary Food 

 Once again, the court finds that the allegations in plaintiff’s first amended complaint are 

too vague and conclusory to state an Eighth Amendment claim for relief. Although plaintiff 

attempts to link the unsanitary food to his stomach problems, he does so in an entirely conclusory 

manner. He fails to identify the doctor who treated him for his stomach problems or provide any 

dates in which he received treatment. This claim will once again be dismissed with leave to 

amend. 

 C. Retaliation Claim 

While plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to establish a colorable retaliation claim, he has 

failed to identify which defendant(s) were involved in the alleged retaliation. While plaintiff 

states that “Guard Niedlinger, Richards and others told me to stop filing 602’s [be]cause Sergeant 

Turner and the guards don’t like it,” he does not allege that these particular defendants were the 

same ones who tore up his cell or prevented him from attending yard or religious services. ECF 

No. 11 at 5. Therefore, with respect to these named defendants, plaintiff has failed to identify any 

adverse action that they took against him which could be construed as retaliatory. See Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support his claims. Jones v. Community 

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Even though plaintiff identified particular 

adverse actions taken by other guards at CSP-Sac, he has failed to name these guards in the first 

amended complaint. Other than providing a long list of named defendants at the outset of the first 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 12 Filed 06/13/14 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

amended complaint, plaintiff fails to identify which defendant(s) is responsible for the alleged 

retaliation claim. In the interests of justice, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file a second 

amended complaint in order to specifically identify which defendants engaged in this conduct. 

 If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how 

the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or 

statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The second amended 

complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the 

deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is 

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of 

official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 Plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make his 

second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th 

Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the prior pleading no longer serves 

any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims alleged in the first amended 

complaint are dismissed with leave to amend; and 

 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; failure 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 12 Filed 06/13/14 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 file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: June 12, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 12 Filed 06/13/14 Page 6 of 6