Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01652/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01652-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC DARNELL JOY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

B. LASZUK, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01652-EPG-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 

Plaintiff Eric Darnell Joy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed 

the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint explains that he 

was subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement and was injured by another inmate when 

Defendants B. Laszuk, M. Valdez, M. Garcia, and T. Gonzalez, III failed to protect him.

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim 

against any individual defendant because it does not link the actions of any particular defendant 

to the injuries alleged. While Plaintiff describes harsh and troubling conditions, he does not say 

what any defendant did to him or to put him in those conditions. The Court needs this 

information to determine if specific people violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. This order 

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 1 of 9
2

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

provides an explanation of the relevant law so that Plaintiff may amend his complaint with 

further factual allegations. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days.

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). “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). 

A complaint is required to 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). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 

as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To 

state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of 

meeting this plausibility standard. Id. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id.

II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at the California Substance 

Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the 

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff 

names as defendants two C/Os, B. Laszuk and M. Valdez, as well as Sergeant M. Garcia and 

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 9
3

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

Lieutenant T. Gonzalez, III. 

Plaintiff alleges that at some point both his hands and feet were shackled and he was 

restrained and prevented from going to the bathroom. As a result, he urinated and defecated on 

himself twice. After this incident, he was placed in inappropriate housing and was assaulted by 

another inmate. Plaintiff sustained injuries to his head and face. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants failed to protect him from this assault. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the 

amount of $250,000.

III. PLAINTIFF=S CLAIMS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or 

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the 

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution and laws, 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.

“[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a 

method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94 (1989), quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979); see also Chapman v. 

Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 

1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. 

Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). 

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant acted 

under color of state law, and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the 

Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 

2006); see also Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing

“under color of state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the 

meaning of § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or 

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 

complaint is made.’” Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th 

Cir. 2007), quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “The requisite causal 

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 3 of 9
4

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

connection may be established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which 

the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.” 

Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1183, quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743. This standard of causation

“closely resembles the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v. 

Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los 

Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).

A. Adverse Conditions of Confinement – Eighth Amendment

“It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions 

under which [the prisoner] is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.” 

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 

(1994). Conditions of confinement may, consistent with the Constitution, be restrictive and 

harsh. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 

1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006); Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1996); Jordan v. 

Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1531 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Prison officials must, however, 

provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” 

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other 

grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 

731 (9th Cir. 2000); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982); Wright v. Rushen, 

642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981). 

When determining whether the conditions of confinement meet the objective prong of 

the Eighth Amendment analysis, the Court must analyze each condition separately to determine 

whether that specific condition violates the Eighth Amendment. See Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 

1107; Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1246-47; Wright, 642 F.2d at 1133. “Some conditions of 

confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when each would 

not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the 

deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise – for 

example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.” Wilson v. 

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); see also Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 4 of 9
5

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

2010); Osolinski, 92 F.3d at 938-39; Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1107; Wright, 642 F.2d at 1133. 

When considering the conditions of confinement, the Court should also consider the amount of 

time to which the prisoner was subjected to the condition. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 

686-87 (1978); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005); Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 

1258. As to the subjective prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis, prisoners must establish 

prison officials’ “deliberate indifference” to unconstitutional conditions of confinement to 

establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 

303. This Court has found that “placement of seriously mentally ill inmates in the harsh, 

restrictive and non-therapeutic conditions of California's administrative segregation units for 

non-disciplinary reasons for more than a minimal period necessary to effect transfer to 

protective housing or a housing assignment violates the Eighth Amendment.” Coleman v. 

Brown, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1099 (E.D.Cal. 2014).

Plaintiff’s allegations that he was restrained and prevented from using the bathroom for 

an extended period of time are troubling and could give rise to an Eighth Amended violation. 

However, Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide enough information, especially regarding who 

did what. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should describe what each defendant 

did to restrain him or prevent him from using the bathroom. Plaintiff does not explain which of 

the Defendants prevented him from going to the bathroom. 

Plaintiff must also allege facts showing that the Defendants acted with deliberate 

indifference to his condition. In other words, he must explain how Defendants knew of his 

condition and then acted (or failed to act) in a way that showed conscious disregard of his 

condition. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should add allegations that clearly 

describe who was present when he was restrained and explain what role each defendant played.

B. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff has named several correctional employees in the chain of command, without 

alleging that any of those employees personally acted against him. Plaintiff is advised that 

“[l]iability under [§] 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the 

defendant. A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional violations of . . . subordinates if the 

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 5 of 9
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

supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act 

to prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability under [§] 1983.” Taylor v. List, 880 

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each 

defendant, through his or her own individual actions, violated Plaintiff=s constitutional rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009). If Plaintiff 

chooses to file an amended complaint, he should specify exactly what each Defendant did, 

when they acted (or failed to act), and what happened because of their actions (or failures to 

act). 

C. Failure to Protect – Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to protect inmates from 

violence at the hands of other inmates. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. A prison official violates this 

duty when two requirements are met. Id. at 834. First, objectively viewed, the prison official’s 

act or omission must cause “a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. Second, the official must 

be subjectively aware of that risk and act with “deliberate indifference to inmate health or 

safety.” Id. at 834, 839–40 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “the official 

must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 

serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. Deliberate indifference 

is “something more than mere negligence” but “something less than acts or omissions for the 

very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Id. at 835. A prison 

official’s deliberate indifference may be established through an “inference from circumstantial 

evidence” or “from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Id. at 842.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under these legal standards 

because Plaintiff does not state any facts that demonstrate that any particular Defendant was 

aware of the risk and deliberately disregarded that risk. Instead, Plaintiff names the two C/Os, 

a correctional sergeant, and a correctional lieutenant. It is not clear from the Complaint what 

role any of them played in the attack that Plaintiff suffered. 

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 6 of 9
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

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint, Plaintiff should describe the circumstances 

of the attack, i.e., when it happened, where it happened, who was present, and what happened 

before, during, and after the attack. 

D. Retaliation

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 5527, 532 (9th 

Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that 

such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 

did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567-68; 

accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 

1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff merely states that “I was improperly housed and was assault[ed] while I was on 

orientation because of staff retaliation.” (Complaint at 3, ECF No. 1.) This allegation, without 

more, is insufficient to state a claim for retaliation.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Complaint fails to state any cognizable claim upon 

which relief may be granted under ' 1983. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the 

Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted 

leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days if he chooses to do so.

The Court will dismiss this complaint and give Plaintiff leave to amend to file an 

amended complaint addressing the issues described above. This amended complaint should 

only name as defendants any individuals who directly caused Plaintiff harm and explain what 

those defendants knew and what they did or failed to do to address the risk to Plaintiff. 

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 7 of 9
8

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

Plaintiff should also describe how and when he was hurt and confined. 

The amended complaint must allege constitutional violations under the law as discussed 

above. Specifically, Plaintiff must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat 

superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676. Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health or safety, 

which is sufficiently serious. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 

for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey 

v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in 

itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified 

by the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual allegations would 

state a claim, within 30 days from the date of service of this order;

3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:16-cv-01652-EPG-PC; and,

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Court will 

dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a 

Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG Document 6 Filed 11/08/16 Page 9 of 9