Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00962/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00962-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL P. BLALOCK, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

PATRICK COVELLO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-CV-0962-DMC-P

ORDER

and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 

16. 

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 

Case 2:21-cv-00962-TLN-DMC Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 Page 1 of 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 

2

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with 

at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, 

vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for 

the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague and 

conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Patrick Covello, Warden at Mule 

Creek State Prison (MCSP); and (2) Sierra Roberts, Registered Nurse at MCSP. See ECF No. 16. 

Plaintiff alleges two claims for relief. See id. at 3-4.

 In Claim I, Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to his safety. See id. at 3. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Roberts failed to prevent the transfer of inmates between areas of 

the prison before, during, and after quarantines related to Covid-19 and that proper cleaning 

procedures were not followed to prevent the spread of disease. See id. Plaintiff claims that, due to 

an unspecified pre-existing medical condition, Defendant Roberts’ actions led to an unjustified 

risk of disease and possible death. See id. Plaintiff further alleges that he was required to clean his 

clothing and linens at his own expense to prevent the spread of disease. See id. Finally, Plaintiff 

alleges that, due to the quarantine procedures, he was unable to work and therefore lost wages he 

otherwise would have earned. See id. 

 In Claim II, Plaintiff alleges retaliation. See id. at 4. Plaintiff claims he was told 

that he could refuse testing without retaliation. See id. When Plaintiff refused to continue testing 

after taking 15 tests, a sign was placed on his cell door, and he was stripped of his privileges to 

access the yard, canteen and phone. See id. Once he agreed to test, his privileges were restored. 

See id. Plaintiff alleges that, acting according to a plan set out by Defendant Covello, he was 

denied his privileges as retaliation for his refusal to test for Covid-19. See id. Plaintiff further 

alleges that he was threatened by other inmates in his cell. See id. Plaintiff does not offer any 

further facts to support this latter part of the claim.

Case 2:21-cv-00962-TLN-DMC Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 Page 2 of 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 

3

II. DISCUSSION

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint plausibly states a 

cognizable claim for relief against Defendant Roberts in Claim I related to the conditions of 

confinement and the threat to Plaintiff’s safety resulting from non-compliance with applicable 

guidelines related to Covid-19. Plaintiff, however, has not alleged facts sufficient to state a 

cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Covello in Claim II. The Court herein 

recommends dismissal of Defendant Covello and Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. By separate order, 

the Court will direct service on Defendant Roberts as to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim 

in Claim I. 

 In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation, the prisoner must 

establish that he was retaliated against for exercising a constitutional right, and that the retaliatory 

action was not related to a legitimate penological purpose, such as preserving institutional 

security. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). In meeting 

this standard, the prisoner must demonstrate a specific link between the alleged retaliation and the 

exercise of a constitutional right. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995); 

Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 1989). The prisoner must also 

show that the exercise of First Amendment rights was chilled, though not necessarily silenced, by 

the alleged retaliatory conduct. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000), see also

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 569 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the prisoner plaintiff must 

establish the following in order to state a claim for retaliation: (1) prison officials took adverse 

action against the inmate; (2) the adverse action was taken because the inmate engaged in 

protected conduct; (3) the adverse action chilled the inmate’s First Amendment rights; and (4) the 

adverse action did not serve a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568. 

 In this case, and as with the first amended complaint, the Court continues to find 

that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to plead all of the essential elements for a retaliation claim. 

First, Plaintiff’s refusal to be tested for the Covid-19 virus while in prison was not protected 

conduct under the Constitution. Second, Plaintiff’s placement in what in essence was quarantine 

pending testing was not an adverse action. Third, even if placement in quarantine constituted an 

Case 2:21-cv-00962-TLN-DMC Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 Page 3 of 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

4

adverse action given that Plaintiff was denied privileges until he agreed to be tested, the action 

served the legitimate penological purpose of preventing the spread of Covid-19 in the prison. 

Further, the action was as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the objective, and any loss of

privileges was restored upon a minimally invasive testing procedure. Finally, though Plaintiff 

claims that Defendants were involved in the IAC meeting, he does not allege any facts to directly 

connect them to the decision to place Plaintiff in quarantine, which is the basis of Plaintiff’s 

claim. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:21-cv-00962-TLN-DMC Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 Page 4 of 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 

5

III. CONCLUSION

 Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 

cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows:

 1. It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly 

assign a District Judge to this action.

 2. It is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint as to his deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Roberts only. 

 3. It is hereby further RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s retaliation claim 

against Defendant Covello be dismissed for failure to state a claim and that Covello be terminated 

as a defendant to this action. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: May 15, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-00962-TLN-DMC Document 17 Filed 05/15/24 Page 5 of 5