Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05659/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05659-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD RABB,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5659 AWI WMW P 

vs. ORDER 

G. HONEST, et al.,

Defendants.

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action proceeds on the April 11, 2007, first amended complaint filed in response to

an earlier order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend. In the earlier order, the

court identified deficiencies, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend to correct the deficiencies.

Plaintiff is advised that the first amended complaint states a claim for relief as to

Defendant Honest, but fails to state a claim against the remaining Defendants. In the earlier

order dismissing the original complaint, the Court noted the following.

Plaintiff, an inmate formerly in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at

Wasco State Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials

employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Wasco.

Case 1:03-cv-05659-AWI-WMW Document 21 Filed 01/28/08 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

2

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force while housed at Wasco.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that while being prepared for transfer to another facility, defendants

used a water hose and a spit mask on him. 

The Eighth Amendment provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The proscription applies

to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v.

California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). Prison brutality is part of the total punishment to which the

individual is being subjected for his crime and, as such, is a proper subject for Eighth

Amendment scrutiny. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 669, (1977). The Eighth Amendment

is specifically concerned with the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain in penal institutions

and serves as the primary source of substantive protection to convicted prisoners in cases where

the deliberate use of force is challenged as excessive and unjustified. Whitley v. Albers, 475

U.S. 312, 327,(1986); see also Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.386, 392 n.10 (1989).

To constitute the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" in the prison context, the

United States Supreme Court requires that both the objective and subjective component of the

Eighth Amendment be satisfied. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). First, the deprivation

complained of must be sufficiently serious by objective standards. Id. 501 U.S. at 297. A

deprivation is sufficiently serious if it denies "'the minimal civilized measure of life's

necessities.'" Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981) (violation requires

showing of unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain resulting in a physical injury which is of

such base, inhumane and barbaric proportions as to shock the sensibilities)). See Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S.1,(1992) (objective prong not met where injury is de minimus); but see,

Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1993) (Hudson substantial injury requirement met by

psychological harm alone, such that body searches of female inmates by male guards constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment).

Case 1:03-cv-05659-AWI-WMW Document 21 Filed 01/28/08 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

3

Second, the prison officials responsible for the deprivation must act with a sufficiently

culpable state of mind by subjective standards. Id. To be sufficiently culpable, "the offending

conduct must be wanton." Wilson, 501 U.S. at 299. In situations where officials are not acting

under pressure, "deliberate indifference" constitutes wantonness. Id. at 299-300. Where a

prison security measure is undertaken to resolve a disturbance, the question of whether the

Amendment 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. Whitley v. Albers,

475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986).

The law makes clear that a mere dispute over the reasonableness of a particular use of

force or the existence of arguably superior alternatives does not amount to a triable issue of fact.

Whitley v. Albers, id., 475 U.S. 319. Further, physical force used by prison staff against inmates

does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation when it is used in proportion to the

requirements of a given situation. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F. 2d 1237, 1251 (9th Cir. 1982).

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 the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

1978).

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff states a claim against Defendant Honest for

spraying him with cold water for a prolonged period of time, causing injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff

fails to correct the deficiencies as to the remaining Defendants.

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint to correct the

Case 1:03-cv-05659-AWI-WMW Document 21 Filed 01/28/08 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

4

noted deficiencies. Should Plaintiff desire to proceed against Defendant Honest on the first

amended complaint, he shall notify the Court of his intention.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the

date of service of this order in which to file a second amended complaint or notify the Court of

his intention to proceed against Defendant Honest.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05659-AWI-WMW Document 21 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 4