Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01644/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01644-4/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

DARRYL McGRUE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHULTZLER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01644-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT

BENTON

(Doc. 11)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff Darryl McGrue (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on

November 14, 2006, and filed an unsigned amended complaint on December 14, 2006. Pursuant to

the court’s order of March 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a signed second amended complaint on April 16,

2007, and on April 26, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s second amended complaint for failure

to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on

May 17, 2007. 

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).

Case 1:06-cv-01644-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/11/07 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

“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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether

the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of

the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey,

353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.”

Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l

Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

The events at issue in this action allegedly occurred at California State Prison-Corcoran,

where plaintiff was housed at the time. Plaintiff names Group Rehab Therapist Benton and

Correctional Officers England and Mendez as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking money damages. The

claim in this action arisesfrom the alleged failure to provide plaintiff with shoes, which led to injury.

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01644-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/11/07 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

1. Claim Against Defendant Benton

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Benton is in charge of giving out shoes. Plaintiff alleges that

he told Benon his shoes had been confiscated so he had only shower shoes to wear, and that he had

diabetes and needed shoes to wear. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Benton refused to give him any

shoes and as a result, his feet got infected and his toe had to be amputated.

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). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate

indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in

a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may

be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,”

or in the manner “in which prison physicians provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment,

the delay must have led to further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd.

of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim for relief under section 1983 against

defendant Benton for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Erickson v. Pardus,

127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007).

2. Claim Against Defendants England and Mendez

Plaintiff alleges that defendants England and Mendez engaged in a practice of removing

inmate appeals from the mailbox and destroying them. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, his attempts

///

Case 1:06-cv-01644-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/11/07 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

to appeal the denial of shoes were thwarted. Plaintiff alleges that he would have had shoes to wear

on the yard if defendants had not interfered with his appeals.

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under

color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal

law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Section 1983 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). “A person deprives another of a

constitutional right, where that person ‘does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative

acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, No. 03-56712, 2007 WL 2445998,

*5 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he

‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal

participation in the deprivation, but also be setting in motion a series of acts by others which the

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’” Id.

(quoting Johnson at 743-44). 

The existence of an administrative remedy process does not create any substantive rights and

cannot support a claim for relief for violation of a constitutional right. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Massey v. Helman,

259 F.2d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001). Under certain circumstances, the interference with the appeals

process might give rise to a claim for denial of access to the courts, but such a claim would accrue

only if the interference caused plaintiff to lose his ability to litigate a suit because he was unable to

exhaust. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2187 (2002) (claim for denial

of access to the courts requires that the plaintiff have suffered an actual injury by being shut out of

court). No such circumstance is alleged here, not could it be at this juncture given that it is this

pending suit that is challenging the failure to provide shoes. 

While plaintiff might be able to state a claim against defendants for violation of the Eighth

Amendment if they were involved in the deprivation of shoes, he may only do so if defendants

Case 1:06-cv-01644-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/11/07 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

“[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 837. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a claim that in

destroying his inmate appeals concerning his need for shoes, defendants acted with deliberate

indifference by knowingly disregarding an excessive risk to his health. Therefore, plaintiff fails to

state a claim against defendants England and Mendez for violation of his rights under the Eighth

Amendment, and the mere interference with the appeals process, as alleged in the complaint, does

not violate any of plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution. 

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against defendant

Benton for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. However, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim under section 1983 against

defendants England and Mendez. The court will provide plaintiff one final opportunity to file an

amended complaint, if plaintiff wishes to do so.

If plaintiff does not wish to file a fourth amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding

only against defendant Benton, plaintiff may so notify the court in writing, and the court will issue

a Findings and Recommendations recommending that defendants England and Mendez be dismissed

from this action, and will forward plaintiff one summons and instructions on effecting service of

process. 

In the event that plaintiff does wish to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff is advised

that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d

1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 15-220.

Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged

in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers &

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

Case 1:06-cv-01644-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/11/07 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

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). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must either:

a. File a fourth amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the

court in this order, or

b. Notify the court in writing that he does not wish to file a fourth amended

complaint and wishes to proceed onlyagainst defendant Benton on his Eighth

Amendment claim; and

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01644-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 09/11/07 Page 6 of 6