Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00231-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIL JOHN E. WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00231-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Lil John E. West (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and is currently incarcerated at

Salinas ValleyState Prison. However, the events described in Plaintiff’s complaint took place while

he was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”). Plaintiff is suing under Section 1983

for the violation of his rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff

names Warden James A. Yates, Correctional Officers Lane, Aguilar, and McGirt, Sergeants Fouch,

Ponder, and Flores, and other Correctional Officers as defendants. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty (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

1

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 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

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).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under 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)(2). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual

allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. 

Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on February 12, 2007. (Doc. #1.) On

January 29, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint. (Doc. #11.) Plaintiff’s original

complaint was dismissed for failing to state any claims and Plaintiff was given leave to file an

amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on March 17, 2009. (Doc. 12). This

action proceeds on Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to be a direct response to the Court’s January29, 2009

screening order. Plaintiff makes few factual allegations in his amended complaint; rather, Plaintiff

2

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 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

predominantly attempts to supplement his prior dismissed complaint with clarifications as to its

deficiencies. Plaintiff’s “Statement of Claim” is a brief explanation that: 

he can link through chain of command, and those “walk through”

(illegible) sign in sheets–to show that times–dates, etc. are & were

logged and during that time frame–that had to call in–to A.O.D.T.

warden's off–to clear & show that they had to report to their

supervisors–and thus their supervisors could have stopped–the

deliberate indifference . . . .

(Am. Compl. 3.) Plaintiff's amended complaint appears to be an explanation to the Court that he can 

“link” specific correctional officers to the alleged deliberate indifference if Plaintiff is given access

to the sign-in sheets that reflect which officers were on duty on the dates that Plaintiff's rights were

allegedly violated.

Insofar as Plaintiff does provide facts for a claim, Plaintiff alleges that he and Plaintiff’s cell

mate, Thomas Canup (“Canup”) were injured and Defendants allowed infection to set in. Plaintiff

further alleges that their skin and/or stitches were removed and that theywere left naked in a freezing

jail cell for three weeks. Plaintiff complains that he was unable to obtain medical treatment for his

injuries.

III. Discussion

A. Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to supplement and explain deficiencies in a prior,

original complaint. Plaintiff explains he cannot obtain “the CO6s/Rosters/Sign-in sheets - if

subpeaned [sic] - will back all this up, and clearly show/establish the daily link in chain of command,

as to their participation by allowing it to happen; not adequately acting in their supervisorypositions,

and stopping this atrocity.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff claims that he needs the rosters “to show that

times-dates, etc. were logged ... to clearly show that they had to report to their supervisors.” (Compl.

¶ 1.) Among other things, the Court’s January29, 2009 screening order dismissed Plaintiff’s original

complaint because Plaintiff failed to link any actions of the Defendants to any alleged deprivation

suffered by Plaintiff. (Order Dismissing Compl. With Leave to Amend Compl. Within Thirty Days

4:9-5:2.)

///

3

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 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

Plaintiff is advised that under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is only

obligated to provide “a short and plain statement of [his] claim;” Plaintiff is not obligated to prove

the allegations in his complaint at his stage. The Court will accept the factual allegations in

Plaintiff’s complaint as true. See discussion, supra, Part I. There is no need to provide “time sheets”

or other evidence at this stage.

In the screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint, Plaintiff was advised that an

amended complaint supercedes 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 itself

without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff was warned that

“[a]ll 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. In other words, even the claims that

were properly stated in the original complaint must be completely stated again in the amended

complaint. Plaintiff makes few factual allegations in his amended complaint and instead explains

to the Court that he is unable to obtain the sign-in sheets. Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the

events giving rise to his Section 1983 action. The Court will consider these facts in determining the

sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims.

B. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed states: Everyperson who, under color

of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United State ... to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution ... 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. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976).

To establish a prima facie case under Section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate proof that (1)

the action occurred “under color of law” and (2) the action resulted in a deprivation of a

constitutional right or federal statutory right. McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000).

4

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 4 of 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

A person deprives another of a constitutional right, within the meaning of Section 1983, if that

person does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act

which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the complaint is

made. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “[T]he ‘requisite causal connection can

be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by

setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would

cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’” Sanders v. City & County of San Francisco, 226

Fed. Appx. 687, 691 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson at 743-44).

Plaintiff fails to identifywhat each individual Defendant did that resulted in Plaintiff’sfailure

to receive medical treatment. Plaintiff identifies the Defendants he is attempting to sue, but fails to

provide any explanation as to why each individual Defendant should be held liable for Plaintiff’s

injuries. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim against any defendant, Plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some act or omission. Plaintiff’s current factual allegations fail to explain how each

individual Defendant was responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries.

C. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments and

“embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency.’” 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 579 (8th Cir.

1968)). Further, the Eighth Amendment protects the “physical, dental, and mental health” of

inmates. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9thCir. 1982). A prison official violates the Eighth

Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the objective requirement that the deprivation

is “sufficiently serious,” and (2) the subjective requirement that the prison official has a sufficiently

culpable state of mind. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501

U.S. 294, 298 (1991)).

The objective requirement that the deprivation be “sufficiently serious” is met where the

prison official’s act or omission results in the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities.” Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The subjective

requirement that the prison official has a “sufficiently culpable state of mind” is met where the prison

5

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 5 of 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

official acts with “deliberate indifference” to inmate health or safety. (Id., quoting Wilson, 501 U.S.

at 302-303.) Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury creates a cause of action

under §1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). The delay of, or interference with

medical treatment can amount to deliberate indifference. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

(9th Cir. 2006); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2002); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d

732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Jackson

v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). However, where the prisoner is alleging that delay

of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led to

further injury. See Hallett, 296 F.3d at 745-46; Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766

F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

The allegations set forth by Plaintiff are insufficient to support a claim for violation of the

Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has not linked any of Defendants to the factual allegations in

Plaintiff’s complaint. See discussion supra Part III.B. Plaintiff fails to allege how each individual

Defendant was responsible for failing to provide Plaintiff with medical treatment. Plaintiff cannot

simply sue every correctional officer who happened to be working the day Plaintiff suffered injury. 

Plaintiff must explain how each individual Defendant knew: 1) that Plaintiff had a serious need for

medical treatment, and 2) that his or her failure to act would cause further injury to Plaintiff. The

Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to allege more specific facts and file a second

amended complaint.

D. Plaintiff’s Remaining Claims

Plaintiff attempts to raise claims for the violation of his rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and

Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiff fails to raise a claim that adequately supports a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment rights. Prisoners, despite their conviction and confinement, do not forfeit all

constitutional rights. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979). Nevertheless, prisoners'

constitutional rights are subject to substantial limitations and restrictions in order to allow prison

officials to achieve legitimate correctional goals and maintain institutional security. O'Lone v. Estate

of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 546-47. The Ninth Circuit has

6

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 6 of 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

held that the Fourth Amendment right of people to be secure against unreasonable searches and

seizures "extends to incarcerated prisoners; however, the reasonableness of a particular search is

determined by reference to the prison context." Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699 (9 Cir. th

1997), citing, Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir.1988). Prison officials must

present evidence that a search served a legitimate penological interest. See Walker v. Sumner, 917

F.2d 382, 285 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s factual allegations make no reference to an unlawful search

or a seizure of property.

Plaintiff also fails to adequately support a claim for the violation of his Sixth Amendment

rights. Plaintiff does not specify his reasons for raising a claim under the Sixth Amendment; the

Court assumes Plaintiff is seeking to invoke the Confrontation Clause in order to secure the

aforementioned “time sheets.” See discussion supra Part III.A. The Sixth Amendment states: “In

all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses

against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor....” U.S. Const. amend

VI. The Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal prosecutions. Plaintiff makes no allegations about

any criminal prosecutions; thus, Plaintiff’s claim does not state a claim under the Sixth Amendment.

Plaintiff fails to raise a claim that adequately supports a violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

Amendment rights. It is unclear under which clause Plaintiff raises a Fourteenth Amendment claim. 

To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting a violation of the Due Process Clause, “[w]here a particular

amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort

of governmental behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due

process, must be the guide for analyzing a plaintiff’s claims.” Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874

(9th Cir. 1996) (citations, internal quotations, and brackets omitted). The concept of due process

under the Fourteenth Amendment is broad and wide-ranging. The Eighth Amendment provides a

more explicit textual source of constitutional protection for Plaintiff’s medical care claims. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s due process claims, if any, will be analyzed under the Eighth Amendment. 

See discussion infra Part III.C.

If Plaintiff is attempting to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the

Fourteenth Amendment, he must present evidence of discriminatory intent. See Washington v.

7

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 7 of 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

Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 (1976); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003);

Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s complaint makes no factual

allegations of racial, religious, or other class-based discrimination. Nor does Plaintiff claim anyfacts

regarding Defendants’ intent to discriminate.

IV. Conclusion and Order

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted under Section 1983. Although Plaintiff may be able to state a claim for the violation

of his rights under the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff fails to identify what Defendants did that

resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s complaint also fails to

state any claims for the violation of his rights under the Fourth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend to cure the deficiencies identified by

the Court in this order. 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 second amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). If Plaintiff decides

to amend, his amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff must identify how

each individual defendant caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights:

“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). With respect to exhibits, while

they are permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the

federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In other words, it is not necessary at this

stage to submit evidence to prove the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint because at this stage

Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true.

However, although Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true and “the pleading

standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’” “a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matters, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable

8

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 8 of 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

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at

556).

Finally, Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474; King, 814 F.2d at 567, and must be “complete in itself without reference

to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll 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, 644 F.2d at 814); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. In

other words, even the claims that were properly stated in the original complaint must be completely

stated again in the amended complaint.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failing to state any claims upon which relief

might be granted;

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

3. Plaintiff shall be given leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of this order; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 1:07-cv-00231-LJO -GBC Document 15 Filed 06/28/10 Page 9 of 9