Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00314/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00314-0/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

REYNALDO SOLORZANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00314-LJO-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint filed on 

March 7, 2016. 

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:16-cv-00314-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 05/26/16 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

1915(e)(2)(B).

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). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), brings this action against the 

following individual Defendants employed by the CDCR at PVSP: Warden S. Frauenheim; 

Captain R. Walker; Lieutenant J. Guerra; Correctional Officer (C/O) A. Florez; C/O R. Rojas. 

Plaintiff also names Doe Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that on June 6, 2014, while on the yard, he was attacked by two Southern 

Hispanic inmates. Plaintiff was kicked in the head, groin, chest and in the face “countless 

numbers of times.” (ECF No. 1 p. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that once the alarm sounded, officers 

laughed and joked while they slowly walked to the area where the incident occurred. Plaintiff 

Case 1:16-cv-00314-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 05/26/16 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

alleges that this delay caused him further injury, as the attacking inmates continued to kick him 

in the head and torso. Plaintiff alleges that John Doe officers “did not run or hurry” to protect 

Plaintiff. (Id.) As Plaintiff was being escorted to the medical clinic, Defendant John Doe told 

him that if he spit again, “he was going to throw me to the ground and „beat my ass himself.‟” 

(Id.) 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Eighth Amendment

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). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide 

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994)(quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty under 

the Eighth Amendment to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners because 

being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay

for their offenses against society. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34 (quotation marks omitted); Clem 

v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th 

Cir. 2005). However, prison officials liable under the Eighth Amendment only if they 

demonstrate deliberate indifference to conditions posing a substantial risk or serious harm to an 

inmate; and it is well settled that deliberate indifference occurs when an official acted or failed to 

act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 841 

(quotations omitted); Clem, 566 F.3d at 1181; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. In order to state a claim 

against each individual Defendant, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each Defendant 

knew of a particular harm to Plaintiff and disregarded that harm. 

B. Civil Rights Act

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:16-cv-00314-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 05/26/16 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

2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source 

of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 

2012)(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989))(internal quotation marks 

omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or 

causal connection, between each defendant‟s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal 

rights. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).

In order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual 

defendant, describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that 

defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, 

what happened. Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the 

particular right described by Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each 

Defendant knew of a specific harm to Plaintiff, and disregarded that harm. Except for Warden 

Frauenheim, who will be described below, Plaintiff has failed to allege any conduct as to any of 

the named Defendants. Plaintiff may not state a claim by naming a number of defendants and 

then stating that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff must state the acts 

or omissions of each individual defendant that caused the constitutional violation alleged. 

Plaintiff‟s allegations must contain sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim that the 

individual defendant personally participated in the violation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Plaintiff‟s 

general conclusory allegations fail to state any cognizable claims for relief. 

C. Supervisory Liability

As noted, the only Defendant referred to in the complaint is Warden Frauenheim. 

Plaintiff is advised that Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their 

subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). 

Since a government official cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 

1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead that the official has violated the Constitution through his own 

individual actions. Id. at 673. In other words, to state claim for relief under section 1983, 

Case 1:16-cv-00314-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 05/26/16 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

Plaintiff must link Warden Frauenheim with some affirmative act or omission indicating that he 

knew of a particular risk to Plaintiff‟s safety, and was deliberately indifferent to it. Plaintiff has 

failed to do so here. Warden Frauenheim should therefore be dismissed. 

D. Official Capacity

Plaintiff indicates that he is proceeding against Defendants in their individual and official 

capacities. Plaintiff is advised that “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in 

federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials in their official capacities.” Aholelei 

v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)(citations omitted). Plaintiff‟s 

claims against Defendants in their official capacities should therefore be dismissed.

E. Doe Defendants

Plaintiff also names John Doe defendants. “As a general rule, the use of „John Doe‟ to 

identify a defendant is not favored.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Plaintiff is advised that John Doe defendants (i.e., unknown defendants) cannot be served by the 

United States Marshal until Plaintiff has identified them as actual individuals and amended his 

complaint to substitute names for John Does. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

Case 1:16-cv-00314-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 05/26/16 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

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed March 7, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

a first amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00314-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 05/26/16 Page 6 of 6