Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134-3/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON E. MORRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SGT. JENNINGS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1134 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF 

No. 4. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). 

 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). ECF No. 4. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and 

the court’s June 28, 2013 order to show cause will be discharged. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff is 

required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 

1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate 

agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the 

Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/08/13 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

of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will 

be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in 

plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

 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). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

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

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Summary of the Complaint

 Plaintiff alleges that during the period September 2007 to June 2010 he was served food 

under unsanitary conditions. In particular, plaintiff claims that defendants refused to wear 

hairnets, failed to cover food, left the food out on railings, or let their sweat fall into the food. 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/08/13 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

Plaintiff alleges that when he reminded defendants to cover the food and to wear a hairnet, 

defendants ignored plaintiff, or spoke to him harshly. Plaintiff alleges that he successfully 

grieved the failures, but that in response defendants would only wear their hairnets for a short 

time. Plaintiff claims that he had to see a doctor more than once due to stomach problems. 

 Plaintiff alleges that in September 2010 he was moved to P.S.U, where the defendantsguards also refused to wear a hairnet. 

 Plaintiff claims that he has been exposed to unsanitary conditions, disease, and sickness, 

and that when he filed an inmate appeal, defendants got mad and retaliated against him. 

Analysis

 The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend, because the current complaint fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Food 

 Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the Eighth Amendment. Keenan v. 

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996). While prison food need not be tasty or aesthetically 

pleasing, it must be adequate to maintain health. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 

1993). “The fact that the food occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, 

while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.” Id., citing Hamm v. DeKalb 

County, 774 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1096 (1986); see also 

George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A] single incident of unintended food 

poisoning, whether suffered by one or many prisoners at an institution, does not constitute a 

violation of the constitutional rights of the affected prisoners.”); Islam v. Jackson, 782 F. Supp. 

1111, 1114–15 (E.D.Va.1992) (serving one meal contaminated with maggots and meals under 

unsanitary conditions for thirteen days was not cruel and unusual punishment, even though 

inmate suffered symptoms of food poisoning on one occasion); Bennett v. Misner, 2004 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 19568* at 63, 2004 WL 2091473 (D. Or., Sept.17, 2004) (“Neither isolated instances 

of food poisoning, temporary lapses in sanitary food service, nor service of meals contaminated 

with maggots are sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.”) 

 In this case, plaintiff has not alleged that the food he received was inadequate to maintain 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/08/13 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

his health. Instead, he has alleged that on occasion there was some unidentified foreign object, 

hair, or sweat in his food, and that he had to go the doctor for “stomach problems.” However, 

plaintiff fails to provide the court with any information about the stomach problems, and, more 

importantly, fails to link the alleged problems to his food. Absent this basic information, the 

undersigned finds that plaintiff’s claims that defendants violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

rights when they served his food is vague and conclusory and therefore fails to state a claim. 

Accordingly, the claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Harassment 

 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Whitted, Spangler, and Lee used foul language when 

plaintiff asked them to wear a hairnet, or to cover plaintiff’s food. This is not a colorable Eighth 

Amendment claim, because 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). Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for verbal harassment. 

Retaliation 

 The Ninth Circuit recently reiterated the five elements of a retaliation claim, specifying 

what a plaintiff must allege in order to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: 

First, the plaintiff must allege that the retaliated-against conduct is 

protected. The filing of an inmate grievance is protected conduct. 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005). Second, 

the plaintiff must claim the defendant took adverse action against 

the plaintiff. Id. at 567. The adverse action need not be an 

independent constitutional violation. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 

802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). “[T]he mere threat of harm can be an 

adverse action....” Brodheim [v. Cry], 584 F.3d [1262,] 1270 [9th 

Cir. 2009)]. 

Third, the plaintiff must allege a causal connection between the 

adverse action and the protected conduct. Because direct evidence 

of retaliatory intent rarely can be pleaded in a complaint, allegation 

of a chronology of events from which retaliation can be inferred is 

sufficient to survive dismissal. See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808 (“timing 

can properly be considered as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory 

intent”); Murphy v. Lane, 833 F.2d 106, 108-09 (7th Cir. 1987). 

Fourth, the plaintiff must allege that the “official’s acts would chill 

or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First 

Amendment activities.” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 (internal 

quotation marks and emphasis omitted). “[A] plaintiff who fails to 

allege a chilling effect may still state a claim if he alleges he 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/08/13 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

suffered some other harm,” Brodheim, 584 F.3d at 1269, that is 

“more than minimal,” Robinson, 408 F.3d at 568 n.11. That the 

retaliatory conduct did not chill the plaintiff from suing the alleged 

retaliator does not defeat the claim at the motion to dismiss stage. 

Fifth, the plaintiff must allege “that the prison authorities’ 

retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the 

correctional institution....” Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 

(9th Cir. 1985). A plaintiff successfully pleads this element by 

alleging, in addition to a retaliatory motive, that the defendant’s 

actions were arbitrary and capricious, id., or that they were 

“unnecessary to the maintenance of the institution.” Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1230 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). 

 In this case, reading plaintiff’s allegations as broadly as possible, plaintiff’s allegations 

fail to state a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that he filed grievances after defendants 

served him unsanitary food, and that in response, defendants spoke harshly to plaintiff. Plaintiff 

does not identify any “adverse action” or other conduct by defendants which he claims to be, or 

which could be construed as, retaliatory. Moreover, to the extent the harsh speaking was an 

adverse action, plaintiff fails to allege any chilling effect. Absent this most basic information, 

plaintiff fails to state a claim, and his retaliation claim must be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Conclusion 

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

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

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

order. 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there 

is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/08/13 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

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The court’s June 28, 2013 order to show cause, ECF No. 5, is discharged; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

 3. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith; 

 4. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim; and 

 5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and 

two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with 

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: November 7, 2013 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 10 Filed 11/08/13 Page 6 of 6