Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01937/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01937-2/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

 In his amended complaint, plaintiff states his allegations occurred while he was a 1

detainee at the Solano County Jail. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff is still incarcerated at the Solano County

Jail. It is not apparent from the record whether plaintiff has now been convicted, but in an

abundance of caution, the court has analyzed his claims as if he were a pretrial detainee. As

noted below, the legal standards to be applied are the same under either circumstance.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1937 MCE JFM P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF,

et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an 1

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 11, 2007, plaintiff's complaint

was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. After receiving an extension of time,

plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint.

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.

Case 2:07-cv-01937-MCE -JFM Document 15 Filed 01/25/08 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

2

§ 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.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, U.S. , 2007 WL 1461066, slip op. at 8 (2007) (quoting Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a

complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it

must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic, id. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only

‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” 

Erickson v. Pardus, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 2197 (June 4, 2007) (quoting Bell, slip op. at 7-8, in

turn quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id., 

and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01937-MCE -JFM Document 15 Filed 01/25/08 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

3

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that on August 20, 2007, foul sewage

sludge water began backing up in his cell sink requiring the sludge to be scooped out to prevent

overflowing. Plaintiff states he “repeatedly brought to the attention of the three shifts of deputies

Gilligan, Castro and John Doe, the defendants, the horrific conditions [he] was experiencing with

the foul sewage sludge toxic odor.” (AC at 5-6.) On August 26, 2007, “two separate chemicals

were applied by the plumber and the combination of the three odors were so toxic that the cell

was closed, I was transferred to another location and placed on respiratory treatment for the

damage I sustained to my lungs.” (AC at 6.) Plaintiff states he is currently undergoing

respiratory treatment. (Id.) 

A pretrial detainee's claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement arises

from the Due Process Clause rather than from the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel

and unusual punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Nevertheless, the Eighth

Amendment provides a minimum standard of care for determining a plaintiff's rights as a pretrial

detainee. Anderson v. Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1312-13 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Redman v. County of

San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir.1991)). To prevail on an unconstitutional conditions

claim under an Eighth Amendment standard of care, a plaintiff, whether a pretrial detainee or a

convict, must show that defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to the alleged constitutional

violations. Redman, 942 F.2d at 1443; Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991).

With regard to providing pretrial detainees with such basic necessities as food,

living space, and medical care, the minimum standard allowed by the Due Process Clause is the

same as that allowed by the Eighth Amendment for convicted persons. Hamm v. Dekalb County,

774 F.2d 1567, 1574 (11th Cir.1985). To comply with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment, a prison must provide prisoners with “adequate food,

clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,

1246 (9th Cir.1982). However, this does not mean that federal courts can or should interfere

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01937-MCE -JFM Document 15 Filed 01/25/08 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

4

whenever prisoners are inconvenienced or suffer de minimis injuries. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 539

n.21 (noting that a de minimis level of imposition does not rise to a constitutional violation).

The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of these necessities must

be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred. "The more basic

the need, the shorter the time it can be withheld." Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1259; see also Anderson

v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314, as amended, 75 F.3d 448 (9th Cir.1995) ("[A] lack of

sanitation that is severe or prolonged can constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of

the Eighth Amendment."). Thus, temporary deprivations of sanitation are not cognizable under

§ 1983. See, e.g., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978)(stating "A filthy, overcrowded

cell and a diet of 'grue[l]' might be tolerable for a few days and intolerably cruel for weeks or

months," but ultimately holding conditions in isolation cells violated prohibition against cruel

and unusual punishment). 

Plaintiff seeks money damages for the damage caused to his lungs. (AC at 5.)

However, mere negligence is insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. Frost v. Agnos, 152

F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). The fact that the sink in plaintiff’s cell backed up with foul

sewage for a period of almost one week is a temporary deprivation not cognizable under § 1983. 

In addition, plaintiff states that on one occasion, the two chemicals applied by the plumber joined

with the sewage odor, to form a toxic odor. The cell was closed, plaintiff was moved from the

offending cell and provided medical treatment. These actions do not constitute deliberate

indifference on the part of defendants. Thus, plaintiff has failed to state a due process violation,

and the complaint should be dismissed. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's

amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

Case 2:07-cv-01937-MCE -JFM Document 15 Filed 01/25/08 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

5

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 24, 2008.

/001; jone1937.dsm

Case 2:07-cv-01937-MCE -JFM Document 15 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 5