Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00051-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

JON A. MESSINGER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0051 KJM DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants subjected him to verbal harassment and used 

excessive force against him. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint for 

screening. (ECF No. 14.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will grant plaintiff the option 

to proceed with the complaint as screened or file an amended complaint.

SCREENING

I. Legal Standards

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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

////

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 8
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

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 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 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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

However, 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, 

550 U.S. at 555. 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 Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

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 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. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

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

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 8
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

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

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

II. Allegations in the Amended Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to the claim occurred while he was incarcerated 

at Hight Desert State Prison (HDSP). (ECF No. 14 at 1.) He identified the following defendants: 

(1) correctional officer Jon Mossinger; (2) correctional officers Frank Adujo; (3) correctional 

officers Gill; (4) correctional officer J. Goforth; (5) correctional officer Savage; and (6) 

correctional officer J. Lewis. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff alleges that on January 20, 2018, while he was in a Mental Health Crisis Bed, 

officer Mossinger began to harass him, “threatening that he’s going to get [plaintiff] because 

[plaintiff] like[s] to molest little boys.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff states that on January 20, 2018 he 

attempted to assert his common law copyrights against the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and HDSP without his consent. (Id. at 4.) 

Plaintiff further alleges that on January 21, 2018, correctional officer Mossinger kicked 

his cell door and yelled for him to wake up to take his medication. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff told 

Mossinger he did not need the medications because it was only Tylenol. Mossinger snuck into 

the cell and pointed to a letter plaintiff was trying to write. When plaintiff realized Mossinger 

was in his cell he began to panic and blacked out. When plaintiff woke up he had been pulled out 

of bed and dragged to the door where officers Gill and Savage were on top of him strangling him 

with their radio cords. He further alleges that officers Mossinger and Goforth were kicking him 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 8
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

in the ribs, officer Lewis was hitting him on the side of his heat with a metal baton, and officer 

Andujo was standing on his ankles.

III. Does Plaintiff State a Claim Under § 1983?

A. Verbal Harassment

Plaintiff claims officer Mossinger began to harass plaintiff by threatening he was going to 

“get” plaintiff because plaintiff “like[s] to molest little boys.” (ECF No. 14 at 3.)

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the prisoner is 

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual 

punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 832 (1994). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements 

are met” (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such that it results in the 

denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2) subjectively, the prison 

official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

Allegations of verbal harassment typically do not state a claim under the Eighth 

Amendment unless it is alleged that the harassment was “calculated to . . . cause [the prisoner] 

psychological damage.” Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987); see also

Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1998), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Verbal harassment intended to humiliate or endanger the inmate may violate the Constitution. 

See Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1092. Verbal insults are not sufficient to state a claim. See Oltarzewski, 

830 F.2d at 139 (mere verbal abuse, including the use of racial epithets, is not sufficient to state a 

constitutional deprivation under section 1983); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(threats do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation).

Plaintiff’s allegations that Mossinger made a verbal threat is not sufficient to show that his 

constitutional rights were violated.

B. Copyright Infringement

Plaintiff alleges that on January 20, 2018, he attempted to assert his “common law 

copyrights against CDCR/HDSP from using [his] copyrighted property” without his consent. 

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 8
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

(ECF No. 14 at 4.) To state a claim for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must allege 1) that he 

or she owns a valid copyright in a work, and 2) the defendant copied original elements of the 

copyrighted work. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 

(1991)); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir.2006).

Here, plaintiff has not alleged that he owns a valid copyright in a work. Therefore, he has 

failed to properly allege a claim for copyright infringement.

C. Excessive Force

The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992). For 

claims arising out of the use of excessive physical force, the issue is “‘whether force was applied 

in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause 

harm.’” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (per curium) (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7). 

The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is contextual and responsive to 

contemporary standards of decency, Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, and although de minimis uses of 

force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always 

violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is 

evident, Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-8 (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10).

The complaint alleges that plaintiff passed out and awoke to officers Mossinger, Gill, 

Savage, Goforth, Lewis, and Andujo kicking, strangling, and hitting him. Such allegations are 

sufficient to state an excessive force claim against these defendants.

AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

As set forth above, the amended complaint states an excessive force claim against 

defendants Mossinger, Gill, Savage, Goforth, Lewis, and Andujo, but does not state any other 

claims. Accordingly, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to proceed with the complaint as 

screened or to amend the complaint. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must 

demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his 

constitutional rights. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-71. Also, the complaint must allege in specific 

terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 8
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

1355 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some 

affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s action and the claimed deprivation. Id.; 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory 

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey, 673 F.2d at 

268.

Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant 

and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required 

to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named 

defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must include it in the body of the complaint. The 

charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of 

the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in 

support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 

R. Civ. P 10(b). The amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action 

is brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It 

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons 

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional 

right. Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional 

right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally 

required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his 

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all 

prior pleadings are superseded. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 

has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The first amended complaint (ECF No. 14) states a potentially cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim against defendants Mossinger, Gill, Savage, Goforth, Lewis, and 

Andujo as set forth in Section III above. The complaint does not state any additional 

claims. Accordingly, plaintiff will have the option of proceeding with the complaint 

as screened or filing an amended complaint.

2. Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 

attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action.

3. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: September 23, 2020

DB:12

DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/blan0051.scrn2

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

JON A. MESSINGER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0051 KJM DB P

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his claims Eighth Amendment excessive force 

claim against defendants Mossinger, Gill, Savage, Goforth, Lewis, and Andujo. Plaintiff 

understands that by going forward without amending the complaint he is voluntarily 

dismissing all other claims.

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint.

DATED:_______________________

Joshua Davis Bland

Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:20-cv-00051-DAD-SCR Document 15 Filed 09/24/20 Page 8 of 8