Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01563-1/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

JIMMY MAGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAVEZ, et.al.,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-1563-OWW DLB-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1)

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 filed this action on December 8, 2005. 

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). 

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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at Wasco State Prison. Plaintiff

namesCorrectionalOfficersChavez, Fontes, Matthews;Sergeant Simpson and Lieutenant Guttierrez

as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that on September 5, 2005, a gang related riot occurred due to “the

negligence of Officers Fontes and Matthews because Fontes didn’t lock the bar box when the lower

tier went to dinner.” Plaintiff contends that a riot occurred and after the inmates were contained and

handcuffed, he told the Officers that the blacks were involved in the riot. Plaintiff alleges that he was

told to be quiet and then a mask was put over his head and he was slammed into a cement wall.

Plaintiff seeks damages against the named defendants for the use of excessive force. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claimagainst the named defendants

for use of excessive force in violation fo the Eighth Amendment. First, plaintiff has failed to link the

named defendants to the alleged use of force. While plaintiff alleges that defendants Fontes and

Matthews failed to lock the bar box which caused the riot, he does not allege that these defendants

used excessive force against him. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . 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). The Ninth Circuit

has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim

for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or

omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

In addition, the use of excessive force by a prison official violates the eighth amendment.

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). Determining whether there has been an

eighth amendment violation turns upon " 'whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain

or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.' " See id.

at 6 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (1986)).

To prevail on an excessive force claim, an inmate must show the official applied force

"maliciously and sadistically" for the purpose of inflicting pain, rather than in a "good faith effort to

maintain or restore discipline." Id. at 4-5, 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999. Such factors as the need for the

application of the force, the relationship between the need for the application of force and the amount

of force used, and the extent of injury inflicted are relevant to the ultimate determination. Whitley v.

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (1986). An inmate, however, does not need to have

suffered an injury to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7.

From plaintiff’s allegations, it is unclear whether plaintiff contends the officer applied force

"maliciously and sadistically" for the purpose of inflicting pain, rather than in a "good faith effort to

maintain or restore discipline.” 

Further, to the extent plaintiff allegesthat defendants Matthews’ and Fontes’ actions in failing

to lock the bar box led to his injuries, plaintiff is advised that to constitute cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the wanton and

unnecessary infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Although

prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with food,

clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id.; Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d

1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Prison officials

have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at

1250 (9th Cir. 1982); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). To establish a violation of this

duty, the inmate must establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

of serious harm to the inmates’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The deliberate indifference

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298

(1991)). Second, the prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate

health or safety.” Id. at 837. 

Plaintiff characterizes defendants Matthews and Fontes conduct in failing to lock the bar box

as “negligent.” Negligent conduct does not give rise to a cognizable claim under the Eighth

Amendment.

Thus, as submitted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The court will provide plaintiff the opportunity to cure the deficiencies identified in this order.

Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete

in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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.

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted;

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

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

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01563-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 4