Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00741/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00741-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW M. GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPRING CHRIESE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00741-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 4

BACKGROUND

Matthew Gonzalez, an inmate on pretrial detention at the Alameda County Jail, filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for 

review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

BACKGROUND

Gonzalez’s complaint alleges the following: On June 3, 2015, he received an “anoscopy 

turned sexual[] assault and harassment.” Docket No. 1 at 4.1 He describes the incident thusly: 

Nurse Practitioner Spring Chriese “lubes up plastic tool resembling a penis, and sticks it inside of 

me. She then pulls out and says sometimes people have gay sex and don’t want to admit it. I feel 

dirty defencive, and assulted by her. I plead for mercy and try and defend my sexuality while 

nurse Caroly Arnold, deputy Linn and Spring laugh at my abuse. She then proves her statement 

by ordering an STD test for clamidia and gonneria. I plead my being STD free and try and deni. 

She says that’s what I think and am ordering. I submit and give urine and ask if she will deliver 

 

1 An “anoscope” is a “short speculum for examining the anal canal and lower rectum.” 

Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 82 (24th ed. 1982). 

Case 3:16-cv-00741-SI Document 6 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 7
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

results to save dignity. (She dosent.) All parties laugh.” Id. (errors in source.) Gonzalez stated 

that he was “in a crisis cant wash away dirty feeling.” Id. (errors in source). He made a report to 

mental health department and notified his public defender on June 23, 2015. Deputy Linn and 

Caroly Arnold retaliated and “expose[d] [Gonzalez’s] medical issues in front of one of [his] peers 

at medical visit."

2

Gonzalez’s complaint further alleges the following. Gonzalez tried to call the PREA (i.e., 

Prison Rape Elimination Act) crisis line, the phone number for which was posted as “*89,” but 

dialing that number did not connect him to a crisis line. Gonzalez figured out that the number was 

“#89,”and reached an advocate on July 17, 2015. An investigator, deputy Swedelson, came to see 

him on July 18, and a report was made. Later, on January 16, 2016, deputy Swedelson made him 

sign a statement he never made, i.e., that nurse practitioner Spring “asked if [Gonzalez] engaged in 

gay sex. That was never made and is untrue.” Id. Gonzalez believes that deputy Swedelson made 

the untrue statement to “obstruct justice” and for the purposes of “retaliation” and “harassment.” 

The complaint had several exhibits attached to it. An inmate grievance response addressed 

Gonzalez’s grievance about his “anal discharge,” and mentioned that he had longstanding 

problems with hemorrhoids, on May 15, 2015 was scheduled for a non-urgent anoscopy, missed 

an appointment for the anoscopy on May 29, 2015, and had the anoscopy on June 3, 2015. Docket 

No. 1 at 7. According to the inmate grievance response, Gonzalez received prescriptions for an 

Anusol suppository and Tylenol for several weeks on June 3, 2015, and was informed by a nurse 

on June 8, 2015, that his STD test results were negative. Id. Gonzalez’s inmate appeal dated July 

4, 2015, stated that he had received suppositories and Tylenol for two months before the 

anoscopy. Id. at 8.

Also attached to the complaint was Gonzalez’s inmate grievance complaining that the jail 

 

2 Gonzalez directs the reader to see grievance # 15-0910 as support for his statement that 

deputy Linn and Caroly Arnold “expose[d]” his medical issues and told him that it didn’t matter 

what he said in court. Docket No. 1 at 4. The corresponding inmate grievance describes the 

incident thusly: “I went back to sick call on 7/1/15 and nurse Carolyn and deputy Linn ganged up 

on me. Maliciously Deputy Linn stepped to the door and said ‘you can tell your lawer whatever 

you want to it ain’t gonna change nothing.’ Mind you this was right in front of another inmate 

waiting.” Docket No. 1 at 9 (errors in source). The inmate grievance does not show the revelation 

to another inmate of anything about Gonzalez’s medical condition. 

Case 3:16-cv-00741-SI Document 6 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

posted “the wrong info everywhere at the jail *89 for sexual abuse crisis hot line. It took me time 

but I figured it out #89 is the correct line.” Id. at 12. The accompanying inmate grievance

response stated that the “PREA signs in your housing unit initially displayed #89. Once the 

mistake was discovered, the signs were fixed. A member of the Grievance Unit went to your 

housing unit and confirmed the PREA signs now displayed *89 as the number to call.” Id. at 11. 

There is a handwritten note on the bottom of the inmate grievance response, apparently by 

Gonzalez, stating that the correct number is #89. Id. 

Also attached to the complaint is a copy of a letter dated October 18, 2015 from 

psychologist Jeremy Coles to Gonzalez’s public defender, reporting on Dr. Coles’ assessment of 

Gonzalez’s legal competency to stand trial on a variety of weapons and drug charges. Dr. Coles 

opined that Gonzalez’s “current mental status falls just short of legal competency,” and that 

“[d]agnostically, Mr. Gonzalez appears to be suffering with active, manic symptoms of Bipolar 

Disorder.” Docket No. 1-1 at 1-2. Dr. Coles noted that Gonzalez “is quite preoccupied with an 

event that occurred in jail during which he feels a physician sexually harassed him. Finally, he has 

health concerns, namely that he is defecating parts of his body. All of these issues are circulating 

around in his head and making it hard for him to focus on his legal situation.” Id. at 1.

DISCUSSION

A. Review of Complaint

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 

claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement 

Case 3:16-cv-00741-SI Document 6 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 7
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

need only . . . give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

When a pretrial detainee challenges conditions of his confinement, the proper inquiry is 

whether the conditions amount to punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979). The Eighth 

Amendment does not apply to pretrial detainees ; rather, “[w]here the State seeks to impose 

punishment without such an adjudication, the pertinent guarantee is the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. 

The complaint has several problems. First, although Gonzalez labels the anoscopy a 

sexual assault, he has not alleged facts that plausibly suggest he was sexually assaulted by the 

nurse practitioner. His exhibits indicate that he sought medical care for hemorrhoids, anal 

discharge and pain, and that the nurse practitioner conducted an examination with an anoscope. 

The exhibits show that an anoscopy was planned and scheduled for Gonzalez. Although the 

examination may have made him feel squeamish, Gonzalez has not alleged facts that plausibly 

suggest that anything more than a medical examination was conducted. Likewise, the allegation 

that the nurse practitioner asked Gonzalez whether he had sex with men and her decision to run a 

test for sexually-transmitted diseases does not plausibly suggest anything more than that the nurse 

Case 3:16-cv-00741-SI Document 6 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

practitioner was being thorough in her examination of a man complaining of anal discharge and 

pain. Leave to amend is granted so that Gonzalez may attempt to allege facts, if he has them, that 

plausibly suggest a sexual assault occurred.

Second, Gonzalez’s allegations that he was laughed at by the nurse practitioner, nurse and 

deputy after denying that he had sex with men does not alone rise to the level of a constitutional 

violation. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “‘the exchange of verbal insults between inmates 

and guards is a constant, daily ritual observed in this nation's prisons’ of which ‘we do not 

approve,’ but which do not violate the Eighth Amendment.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 

1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir.1997) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).) Leave to amend is granted so that Gonzalez may attempt to allege 

facts plausibly suggesting that the conduct of nurse practitioner, nurse and deputy went beyond 

verbal harassment. 

Third, Gonzalez has not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that he was subject to 

retaliation. An inmate has a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison or jail 

officials without being subjected to retaliation in response thereto. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 

1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) 

chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 

2005) (footnote omitted). The requirement that the adverse action be taken “because of” the 

protected conduct requires that the inmate show “causal connection between the adverse action 

and the protected conduct.” Watison, 668 F.3d at 1114. Mere speculation that a defendant acted 

out of retaliation is not enough. See Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 904-05 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(affirming grant of summary judgment where no evidence that defendants knew about plaintiff’s 

prior lawsuit, or that defendants’ disparaging remarks were made in reference to prior lawsuit); 

Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000) (retaliation claim cannot rest on the 

logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, i.e., “after this, therefore because of this”). Leave to 

Case 3:16-cv-00741-SI Document 6 Filed 06/13/16 Page 5 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amend is granted so that Gonzalez may attempt to allege a retaliation claim. In his amended 

complaint he must allege facts that plausibly suggest that defendants took an adverse action 

because of his protected conduct -- it is not enough to simply allege that an inmate request was 

denied or that a defendant took an action adverse to the plaintiff. 

Fourth, Gonzalez’s allegation that the rape crisis phone number was not correctly listed 

does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The failure to list the correct phone 

number for the rape crisis hot line also does not amount to punishment in violation of his right to 

due process, especially given his allegation that he was able to figure out the right number and 

make the call. He also urges that it amounted to a violation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 

2003 (PREA), 42 U.S.C. § 15601 et seq. The PREA has not been found to establish a private 

cause of action, even for allegations of prison rape. See Krieg v. Steele, 599 F. App’x 231 (5th 

Cir. 2015) (collecting cases); Tenney v. Baldwin, 2016 WL 2756171, at *3 (S. D. Ill. 2016) (“the 

Court finds that the PREA does not create a private cause of action”); De’Lonta v. Clarke, 2012 

WL 4458648, at *3 (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2012) (“Nothing in the PREA suggests that Congress 

intended to create a private right of action for inmates to sue . . . officials for noncompliance with 

the Act”). Therefore, Gonzalez does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the 

PREA. 

Gonzalez will be permitted to file an amended complaint. In his amended complaint, 

Gonzalez may attempt to plead his claims for a sexual assault and retaliation, but must be careful 

to include non-conclusory factual allegations that plausibly show such violations of his rights. 

Gonzalez also should be careful to link every defendant to his claim(s). He must identify each 

proposed defendant by name and link each of them to his claim by explaining what each defendant 

did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 

F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (liability may be imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only 

if plaintiff can show that defendant proximately caused deprivation of federally protected right); 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 3:16-cv-00741-SI Document 6 Filed 06/13/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. Motion For Appointment of Counsel

Gonzalez has moved for the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A 

district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an 

indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances 

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. On the allegations of the complaint, the 

likelihood of success on the merits looks very low. Plaintiff has not shown a difficulty articulating 

his claims; instead it appears quite likely that what he has alleged occurred did not result in a 

violation of his constitutional rights. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket 

No. 4.)

CONCLUSION

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint 

no later than July 18, 2016, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 

and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended 

complaint must be a complete statement of his claims, except that he does not need to allege any 

claim that has been dismissed without leave to amend. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 

896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline will 

result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00741-SI Document 6 Filed 06/13/16 Page 7 of 7