Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00618/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00618-12/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 CURTIS KERN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JIM COOPER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-00618 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. Procedural History 

By order filed November 8, 2023, the undersigned screened the second amended 

complaint and found that plaintiff had stated claims against Doe defendants but had failed to state 

any claims against defendant Cooper. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was given the option of amending 

the complaint or voluntarily dismissing Cooper and proceeding on the complaint as screened. Id. 

at 6. After opting to proceed on the complaint as screened (ECF No. 13), plaintiff was advised 

that before this case could move forward he would have to file either an amended complaint that 

named the defendants or a motion to substitute named defendants for the Doe defendants. ECF 

No. 14. Plaintiff has now filed a third amended complaint. ECF No. 36. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00618-WBS-AC Document 37 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 7
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 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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 

“frivolous, malicious, or 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). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where 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). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

Case 2:23-cv-00618-WBS-AC Document 37 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 7
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 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 

III. Third Amended Complaint 

The third amended complaint alleges that defendants Avila, Alpatov, Barrera, Zuniga, 

Smith, Cervetti, Ortiz, Russell, and Cooper violated plaintiff’s rights. ECF No. 36. Specifically, 

plaintiff alleges that he was experiencing severe pain on the left side of his chest and in his left 

arm and that Avila put him in an ice cold holding tank instead of sending him to medical and 

ignored plaintiff’s claims that he felt like he was having a heart attack. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also 

alleges that on different occasions, Avila, Alpatov, Barrera, Zuniga, Smith, Cervetti, Ortiz, and 

Russell all ignored him when he notified them that his cell was freezing and he was in severe 

pain. Id. at 5-9. 

IV. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

A Fourteenth Amendment1 medical claim includes the following elements: 

(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the 

conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those 

conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious 

harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures 

to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the 

circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk 

1

 Although plaintiff does not specify whether he was a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner at 

the time of the alleged violation, he appears to have been a pretrial detainee and the undersigned 

will assume, for screening purposes, that his claims are governed by the less rigorous Fourteenth 

Amendment standard. See Vazquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2020) 

(“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment is more protective than the Eighth Amendment ‘because the 

Fourteenth Amendment prohibits all punishment of pretrial detainees, while the Eighth 

Amendment only prevents the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment of convicted 

prisoners.’” (quoting Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004))). 

Case 2:23-cv-00618-WBS-AC Document 37 Filed 07/24/24 Page 3 of 7
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 

involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct 

obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused 

the plaintiff’s injuries. 

Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). 

 Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants Avila, Alpatov, Barrera, Zuniga, Smith, Cervetti, 

Ortiz, and Russell were made aware of and ignored his complaints of the freezing conditions in 

his cell and the fact that he was experiencing severe pain state a claim for relief, and these 

defendants will be required to respond to the complaint. 

V. Failure to State a Claim 

“Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant,” 

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980)), and “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient,” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(citations omitted). Furthermore, “[t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A supervisor may be liable 

for the constitutional violations of his subordinates if he “knew of the violations and failed to act 

to prevent them.” Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. Finally, supervisory liability may also exist without 

any personal participation if the official implemented “a policy so deficient that the policy itself is 

a repudiation of the constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.” 

Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations and quotations 

marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836-38 (1970). 

Plaintiff does not make any allegations against defendant Cooper, who appears to have 

been named solely based on his position as the Sacramento County Sheriff, which is insufficient 

to state a claim for relief. 

VI. No Leave to Amend 

Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 

could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 

cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 

Case 2:23-cv-00618-WBS-AC Document 37 Filed 07/24/24 Page 4 of 7
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 

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state any claims for 

relief against defendant Cooper. Plaintiff has already been given multiple opportunities to amend 

the complaint and twice advised what kind of information he needed to provide to state a claim 

against Cooper. Given plaintiff’s repeated failure to allege any conduct by Cooper, it does not 

appear that further amendment would result in a cognizable claim. As a result, leave to amend 

would be futile and the claims against Cooper should be dismissed without leave to amend. 

VII. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

 The complaint states claims against defendants Avila, Alpatov, Barrera, Zuniga, Smith, 

Cervetti, Ortiz, and Russell and you will be provided with service documents to complete and 

return to the court. Once the completed service documents are returned to the court, the United 

States Marshal will be directed to serve defendants Avila, Alpatov, Barrera, Zuniga, Smith, 

Cervetti, Ortiz, and Russell. You should not try to serve the defendants yourself. 

 You have not stated any claims against defendant Cooper because you have not included 

any facts regarding his conduct. Being the sheriff is not enough to make him responsible for the 

alleged violations of your rights. Because you have already been given opportunities to amend 

your claims against Cooper and have not provided more information about what he did, it is being 

recommended that your claims against Cooper be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Service is appropriate for defendants Avila, Alpatov, Barrera, Zuniga, Smith, Cervetti, 

Ortiz, and Russell. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff eight USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet, and a copy of the third amended complaint filed July 19, 2024 (ECF No. 36). 

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: 

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 

b. One completed summons; 

Case 2:23-cv-00618-WBS-AC Document 37 Filed 07/24/24 Page 5 of 7
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 

c. One completed USM-285 form for each of the following defendants: Avila, 

Alpatov, Barrera, Zuniga, Smith, Cervetti, Ortiz, and Russell; and 

d. Nine copies of the endorsed third amended complaint filed July 19, 2024. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 

without payment of costs. 

5. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 

action. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the claims against defendant Cooper be 

dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 

the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). 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). 

DATED: July 24, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00618-WBS-AC Document 37 Filed 07/24/24 Page 6 of 7
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 CURTIS KERN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JIM COOPER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-0618 AC P 

 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order filed 

_____________________: 

 1 completed summons form 

 8 completed forms USM-285 

 9 copies of the complaint 

 

DATED: 

 ________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:23-cv-00618-WBS-AC Document 37 Filed 07/24/24 Page 7 of 7