Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02371/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02371-2/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

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. PHILLIPS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2371 TLN CKD P

ORDER & AMENDED

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On January 27, 2014, the undersigned issued 

an order stating that service was appropriate for three defendants named in the complaint. The 

order was accompanied by findings and a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed as to 

all other defendants. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (ECF No. 11.) Having reviewed the complaint, the undersigned concludes 

that service is also appropriate for defendant Mazyek. Accordingly the court issues these 

amended findings and recommendations.

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 

Case 2:13-cv-02371-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/19/14 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

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 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 Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Plaintiff alleges that on December 26, 2012, he was housed in Administrative Segregation 

at California State Prison-Sacramento with a cellmate named Santana. While trying to extract 

Santana from the cell, defendant Officers Phillips, Fernandez, and Yang discharged three to four 

canisters of pepper spray into the cell, coating both plaintiff and Santana. “Plaintiff requested 

several times to the officers to let him out of the cell because he couldn‟t breathe, and [was] 

choking, eyes and skin burning from the pepper spray.” (ECF No. 1 at 8-9.) Plaintiff was 

removed from the cell and placed in a holding cage but, while Santana was allowed to 

decontaminate himself, plaintiff‟s requests for a shower were ignored and he “sat in the cage 

burning in handcuffs for about two hours.” (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff alleges that the officers had no 

cause to spray him with pepper spray. (Id.; see id. at 21-22.)

For purposes of screening, the complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Phillips, Yang, and Fernandez. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 

F.3d 1021, 1028-1031 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[I]t is generally recognized that that it is a violation of the 

Eighth Amendment for prison officials to use mace, tear gas, or other chemical agents in 

quantities greater than necessary for the sole purpose of infliction of pain.”) 

The complaint also states a claim for relief against defendant Mazyek, who allegedly 

forced plaintiff to wear a straitjacket-type jumpsuit for sixty days after plaintiff was accused of 

sexual misconduct. (ECF No. 1 at 10-11.) See Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“Although the routine discomfort inherent in the prison setting is inadequate to satisfy the 

objective prong of an Eighth Amendment inquiry, „those deprivations denying „the minimal 

Case 2:13-cv-02371-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/19/14 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

3

civilized measure of life‟s necessities‟ are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth 

Amendment violation.‟”), citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991).

If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to 

prevail on the merits of this action. The court will recommend that the remaining defendants and 

causes of action be dismissed, as plaintiff fails to state a § 1983 claim on any other basis.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 27, 2014 findings and recommendations are vacated;

2. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Phillips, Yang, and Fernandez, and 

Mazyek;1

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed November 15, 2013.

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Mazyek; and 

d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed November 15, 2013.

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to 

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed as to defendants 

Turner and Weyer.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

 

1

Plaintiff has already submitted service documents for defendants Phillips, Yang, and Fernandez. 

Thus the court will direct the Clerk of Court to send plaintiff service forms for defendant Mazyek 

only. 

Case 2:13-cv-02371-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/19/14 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

4

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge‟s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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). 

Dated: February 18, 2014

2 / hard2371.amend_fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-02371-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/19/14 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

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. PHILLIPS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2371 TLN CKD P

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order 

filed _____________________:

____ completed summons form

____ completed USM-285 forms

____ copies of the ___________________ 

 Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:13-cv-02371-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/19/14 Page 5 of 5