Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06182/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06182-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

LARRY DONNELL KING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-6182 AWI DLB P 

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING THAT ACTION

PROCEED ON RETALIATION

CLAIM ONLY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the 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. § 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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/09/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

In the instant case, plaintiff brings action against the following: correctional officer Yale,

correctional sergeant Marmolejo, correctional lieutenant Rousseau, correctional lieutenant Mazon,

correctional captain Andrews, associate warden Ortiz, correctional sergeant Indendi, correctional

counselor Streiter, correctional officer Rojas, correctional lieutenant Seifert, psychiatric technicians

Levine and Belardo, correctional sergeant Anderson, vocational nurse Sisk, Dr. Sanchez, M.D.,

correctional officer Gregory, correctional officer Vikjord, correctional officer Syra, correctional

officer Castaneda, and correctional sergeant Martinez. Plaintiff alleges that during his incarceration

at Corcoran State Prison, he was subjected to retaliation, denial of due process, and excessive force. 

I. Retaliation Claim

Plaintiff alleges that on April 16, 2003, he was part of a group appeal challenging the

Department of Corrections’ “illegal practice of forced double-celling.” On May 5, 2003, plaintiff

received a rule violation report for refusing to accept a cellmate. Plaintiff alleges that defendants

Yale and Marmolejo fabricated the rule violation report because plaintiff was a party to the group

appeal challenging double-celling. Defendant Rouseeau classified the rule violation report as a

serious offense and referred it to a senior hearing officer. 

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner's First Amendment rights to speech or to petition

the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.

1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989). To establish a prima

facie case, plaintiff must allege and show that defendants acted to retaliate for his exercise of a

protected activity, and defendants' actions did not serve a legitimate penological purpose. See

Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir.

1995). A plaintiff asserting a retaliation claim must demonstrate a "but-for" causal nexus between

the alleged retaliation and plaintiff's protected activity (i.e., filing a legal action). McDonald v. Hall,

610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1979); see Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S.

274 (1977). The prisoner must allege the existence of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to

establish a link between the exercise of constitutional rights and the allegedly retaliatory action. 

Pratt, 65 F.3d at 806. In the instant case, plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to state a cognizable

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/09/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

retaliation claim against defendants Yale, Marmolejo, and Rousseau. 

III. Due Process Claim

Plaintiff brings action against correctional staff members based on the adjudication of prison

disciplinary rule violation charges. Plaintiff alleges that at a disciplinary hearing on May 26, 2003,

defendant Mazon Alec would not provide staff assistance or allow him to present evidence on his

behalf. At the conclusion of the hearing, defendants Mazon Alec, Andrews, and Ortiz found plaintiff

guilty of refusing to accept a cellmate. Plaintiff was sentenced to 10 days loss of yard privileges and

a 30-day forfeiture of time credit. 

Pursuant to the rule announced in Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), a claim

challenging the procedural aspects of a prison disciplinary hearing is not cognizable under section

1983 if the nature of the inmate’s allegations are such that, if proven, would necessarily imply the

invalidity of the fact or length of plaintiff’s confinement, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the

result of the disciplinary hearing has been previously invalidated. See also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334

F.3d 850, 852 (9 Cir. 2003). Plaintiff’s allegations, if proven, would necessarily imply the th

invalidity of a disciplinary action that affects the length of his confinement, namely, the forfeiture of

30-days’ time credit. Therefore plaintiff’s claim is not cognizable under § 1983 absent a

demonstration that the prison disciplinary proceedings were previously invalidated or set aside. Id. 

Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiff’s due process claim is not cognizable under § 1983 and must

be dismissed.

V. Excessive Force Claim

Plaintiff alleges that on July 3, 2003, he began to hallucinate which caused him to place a

sheet over his door. After plaintiff failed to respond to numerous requests to take the sheet down

from his cell door, defendant Sanchez gave the order to perform a cell extraction with the use of

O.C. pepper spray. Defendants Anderson, Seifert, Gregory, and Vikjord returned to plaintiff’s cell to

perform the cell extraction. Defendant Seifert read a cell extraction admonishment to plaintiff and

defendant Anderson opened the food port and removed the sheet from the door. At that point,

plaintiff contends there was no need to use the chemical agents. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/09/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

Anderson then sprayed plaintiff and threw an OC expulsion “grenade” into plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff

alleges that defendants Mazon Alec, Syra, Sisk, Vikjord, Gregory, Castaneda, and Martinez did not

prevent this use of force. 

When a prison official stands accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the

cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment, the question turns on whether force

was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically for

the purpose of causing harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers,

475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary,

it is proper to consider factors such as the need for application of force, the relationship between the

need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and

any efforts made to temper the severity of the forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The extent

of a prisoner’s injury is also a factor that may suggest whether the use of force could plausibly have

been thought necessary in a particular situation. Id. Although an inmate need not have suffered

serious injury to bring an excessive force claim against a prison official, “[not] every malevolent

touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. “Not every

push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates a

prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir.)(cert.

denied sub nom. Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033 (1973)). The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel

and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimus uses of

physical force. Id. at 9-10.

In the instant case, plaintiff alleges that he failed to respond to numerous orders to take the

sheet down from his cell door. Plaintiff admits that he heard and failed to respond to the cell

extraction admonishment/warning just prior to the event. Given plaintiff’s failure to respond, much

less cooperate with prison officials, the use of OC spray was hardly unprovoked, as plaintiff

describes. Moreover, plaintiff has not alleged that any physical force was used against him or that he

suffered any injury. Given these facts, the Court finds that plaintiff’s allegations fail to rise to the

level of an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/09/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

VI. Conclusion

In summary, the Court finds that plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cognizable

retaliation claim against defendants Yale, Marmolejo, and Rousseau but he fails to state any other

cognizable claims for relief. The Court does not recommend that further leave to amend be granted

in that plaintiff has already been granted leave to amend and was unable to cure the deficiencies in

the due process and excessive force claims. Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that

this action proceed only on retaliation claim against defendants Yale, Marmolejo, and Rousseau.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06182-AWI-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/09/06 Page 5 of 5