Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05962/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05962-0/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

MARTIN BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. DAVIS,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5962-OWW-SMS-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS BE DENIED

(Doc. 28)

I. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Martin Bonilla (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s amended, filed March 11, 2004, against defendant Davis (“defendant”) for depriving

plaintiff of meals in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and violating the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 19.) On February 18, 2005, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6), defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state any claims upon which

relief may be granted. (Doc. 28.) Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motion on April 12, 2005, and

April 22, 2005. (Docs. 30, 31.) Defendant did not file a reply.

B. Legal Standard

“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v. California

Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Case 1:03-cv-05962-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the

light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor.

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). The federal system

is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). “Rule

8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of

which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002);

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a

statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any

set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. Discovery and summary

judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed facts” and “dispose of unmeritorious

claims.” Id. at 512. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the

pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353

F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle him

to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41, 45-46 (1957));see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th

Cir. 1981). 

C. Discussion

The court has a statutory duty to screen complaints in cases such as this and dismiss any

claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C.

///

Case 1:03-cv-05962-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 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

3

§ 1915A. Given this requirement, the court is disinclined to view with favor a subsequent motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The instant motion is no exception. 

1. Verbal Harassment

Defendant misrepresents plaintiff’s claim as one for verbal harassment. Verbal harassment

or abuse alone is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987), and threats do not rise to the level of

a constitutional violation. Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). The court at no time

found that plaintiff stated a cognizable claim based on verbal harassment.

Rather, the court found that plaintiff stated a claim based on the violation of the Equal

Protection Clause. Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that defendant Davis discriminated against

him based on his race. The allegation that defendant called plaintiff a wetback supports plaintiff’s

allegation of race based discrimination. The alleged racial epithet is not, by itself, the basis for

plaintiff’s claim for relief under section 1983. 

2. Deprivation of Food

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to give rise to cognizable

Eighth Amendment claim because the deprivation complained of is insufficient to rise to the level

of an Eighth Amendment violation. As previously stated, “‘[t]he issue is not whether a plaintiff will

ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed

it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not

the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings

need suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin,

262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). At this stage in the proceedings and absent the presentation of

any authority the compels the court to conclude otherwise, the court declines to find that the

allegation that plaintiff was deprived of food for three days is insufficient to state a claim. 

D. Conclusion

In conclusion, the court rejects defendant’s arguments that plaintiff’s factual allegations are

insufficient to give rise to claims for relief under section 1983. Because the court rejects defendant’s

Case 1:03-cv-05962-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 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

4

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s federal claims, the court does not reach defendant’s argument that the

court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. In

addition, court notes that plaintiff did not plead any state law claims and the court did not make a

finding that plaintiff’s amended complaint contains any state law claims. Defendant is cautioned

about expanding the scope of this litigation beyond what has been set forth by either plaintiff or the

court.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state any claims upon which relief may

be granted, filed February 18, 2005, be denied; and

2. Should this Findings and Recommendations be adopted in full, defendant be ordered

to file a response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within thirty days from the date

of the issuance of the district court’s order.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05962-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 4