Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01212/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01212-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL AARON WITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

F. GONZALEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. After dismissal of the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (ECF 

No. 7), plaintiff has filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 8), which the court must screen.1

As in the original complaint, plaintiff purports to bring a Fourth Amendment unreasonable 

search and seizure claim and an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. ECF No. 8 at 3, 5. 

The amended complaint alleges that in June of 2021, plaintiff was assigned to Minimum B 

/////

/////

1

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Case 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB Document 9 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 3
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

Custody at the California Medical Facility (CMF) and was walking outdoors when defendant 

correctional officers Gonzalez, Kahie, Gotu, and Hernandez pulled up in a sedan, got out of the 

car, and grabbed him without “any reasonable suspicion[.]” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges that 

Gonzalez handcuffed him “with his left wrist handcuffed extremely and excessively tight . . . and 

left him handcuffed for about five minutes. Id. at 4. “The defendants repeatedly ignored 

plaintiff’s requests to loosen his left handcuff” while they performed an unclothed body search, 

“despite plaintiff’s loud screams of pain.” Id. at 4-5. Defendant Gonzalez allegedly told plaintiff 

that, if he didn’t struggle against the cuffs, it wouldn’t hurt. Id. Plaintiff sustained a left wrist 

fracture with nerve damage, requiring a brace and physical therapy. Id. 

In the prior screening order, the court found plaintiff’s allegations too vague and 

conclusory to show that the body search was unreasonable or to establish a claim for excessive 

force. ECF No. 7 at 2-3. In the amended complaint, plaintiff provides more details about his 

interaction with defendants during the five minutes he spent in handcuffs, but once again, the 

allegations do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992) (“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment 

necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided 

that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted)). Nor do plaintiff’s revised allegations show that the body search 

was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the amended complaint, like the 

original complaint, fails to state a cognizable claim. 

Despite notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, plaintiff 

is unable to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court finds that further leave to 

amend is not warranted. See Plumeau v. School Dist. # 40, 130 F.3d 432, 439 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(denial of leave to amend appropriate where further amendment would be futile). 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB Document 9 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 8) be 

DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted.

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 fourteen days 

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 27, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01212-KJM-EFB Document 9 Filed 02/28/23 Page 3 of 3