Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00563-1/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

CHRISTOPHER HINES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 00563 AWI GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

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 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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). 

Case 1:14-cv-00563-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/14/15 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

“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. P. 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. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

On March 16, 2012, Plaintiff‟s cell was searched, based upon a statement by the control

officer that he had observed Plaintiff placing something in his anal cavity. Plaintiff agreed to 

submit to an x-ray, which revealed “some type of contraband” in Plaintiff‟s anal cavity. Plaintiff 

was placed on a 72 hour contraband watch. Plaintiff alleges that over the 72 hour period, he had 

three bowel movements. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated prison regulations by keeping 

him on contraband watch for 108 hours. Plaintiff also alleges that he was subjected to cruel and 

unusual punishment because his hands were handcuffed to his waist, and he had no opportunity 

to wash them. 

A. Conditions of Confinement

“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an 

inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an 

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). A 

plaintiff who claims that the conditions of his confinement fall below the constitutional standard 

must make two showings. “First, the plaintiff must make an „objective‟ showing that the 

deprivation was „sufficiently serious‟ to form the basis for an Eighth Amendment violation.” 

Case 1:14-cv-00563-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/14/15 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

Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000)(citation omitted). “The Constitution . . . 

„does not mandate comfortable prisons, and only those deprivations denying „the minimal 

civilized measure of life‟s necessities‟ are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth 

Amendment violation.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)(citations omitted). Second, 

the prisoner must make a “subjective” showing that prison officials “acted with the requisite 

culpable intent such that the infliction of pain is „unnecessary and wanton.‟ In prison condition 

cases, prison officials act with the requisite culpable intent when they act with deliberate 

indifference to the inmate‟s suffering.” Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 

1995).

To make the required objective showing that the conditions of contraband watch were 

“sufficiently serious” to support an Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff needs to present evidence 

of an “excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The risk must be 

shown in a specific deprivation of a basic human necessity. “Nothing so amorphous as „overall 

conditions‟ can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of 

a single human need exists.” Wilson v. Seiter, 294, 305 (19910. “To the extent that such 

conditions are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay 

for their offenses against society.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). “[E]xtreme 

deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim.” Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).

The nature of the deprivation and the duration of Plaintiff‟s stay on contraband watch are 

also factors in the Court‟s analysis. “The more basic the need, the shorter the time it can be 

withheld.‟ . . . More modest deprivations can also form the objective basis of a violation, but 

only if such deprivations are lengthy or ongoing.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731-31 (citations 

omitted). “Prison officials must provide all prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, 

sanitation, medical care, and personal safety . . . The longer the prisoner is without such benefits, 

the closer it comes to being an unwarranted infliction of pain.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 

1285 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 1:14-cv-00563-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/14/15 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

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff alleges that he was on 

contraband watch for 108 hours, 30 hours over the normal period. 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). “A person deprives another of a 

constitutional right, where 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 complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (quoting 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.‟” Id. (quoting 

Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with conduct 

indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s health, resulting in injury 

to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply by alleging that he was subjected to 

an extended contraband watch. Plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that he was deprived 

of a basic human necessity. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each defendant was aware 

of a specific harm to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that harm. Plaintiff has 

failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be 

granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. 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. 

Case 1:14-cv-00563-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/14/15 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 describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

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

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

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is 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 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 v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

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

an amended complaint; 

Case 1:14-cv-00563-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/14/15 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

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00563-AWI-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/14/15 Page 6 of 6