Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01092-2/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Billy Coy Cochran is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint, filed September 10, 2015. 

(ECF No. 16.) 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

///

BILLY COY COCHRAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

E. AGUIRRE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01092-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[ECF No. 16]

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 8
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

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 

construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be facially plausible, 

which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not 

sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s liability” falls short of satisfying 

the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names one hundred and six individuals as Defendants, along with one hundred “Doe” 

Defendants. Plaintiff is a male-to-female transgender prisoner and has been diagnosed with Gender 

Identity Disorder (“GID”). 

Plaintiff contends from about July 3, 1974, to June 15, 2012, he experienced a cognitive 

dissonance from his mental male and female gender not matching his physical male gender. On June 

15, 2012, Plaintiff became incarcerated and had a religious conversion that ended his addiction and 

ability to suppress the female facet of his mental gender. 

Plaintiff contends his right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment was violated by 

officials failing to prevent, detect and respond to other prisoners who beat him unconscious, perforated 

his right eardrum causing permanent diminished hearing, and possibly raped him while unconscious 

for being transgender. 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 8
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

Plaintiff contends officials knew he was exposed to a risk of harm by documenting him as 

transgender but housing him in general population. Prior to the assault, prison officials failed to 

reasonably respond to the risk of harm by: (1) non-custody officials failure to report the risk of harm to 

a level which immediate action can be taken to prevent it; (2) custody officials failed to act to prevent 

it by housing Plaintiff in a sensitive needs yard; or (3) both of the above. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Linkage Under Section 1983

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-677 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th 

Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed under 

a theory of respondeat superior, and some causal connection between the conduct of each named 

defendant and the violation at issue must exist. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep‟t 

of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 

896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

B. Supervisory Liability

Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions of their 

subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior. 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons, 609 F.3d at 

1020-21; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Supervisors may be held liable only if they 

“participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th 

Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff names various individuals as Defendants who hold supervisory level positions within 

the prison. However, Plaintiff is advised that a constitutional violation cannot be premised solely on 

the theory of respondeat superior, and Plaintiff must allege that the supervisory Defendants 

participated in or directed conduct associated with his claims. 

/// 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 8
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

C. Inmate Appeals Process

“The Fourteenth Amendment‟s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 

life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one 

of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005). 

Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he 

cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his 

appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Involvement in reviewing an inmate‟s administrative appeal does not necessarily 

demonstrate awareness of alleged violation. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 

2014). Thus, actions in reviewing a prisoner‟s administrative appeal, without more, are not actionable 

under section 1983. Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993); see also Ramirez, 334 

F.3d at 860. 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to raise an independent constitutional violation based on the 

processing, handling, or improper response to his inmate appeals, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable 

claim for relief. Involvement in reviewing an inmate‟s administrative appeal does not necessarily 

demonstrate awareness of alleged violation. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 

2014). Thus, any claim by Plaintiff that a Defendant erroneously delayed and/or denied an inmate 

appeal relating to his failure to protect claim does not, alone, give rise to a constitutional violation. 

D. Failure to Protect

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from 

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and only those 

deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life‟s necessities are sufficiently grave to form 

the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995 

(1992) (citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from 

violence at the hands of other prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). In order to 

state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to 

support a claim that prison officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 8
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

plaintiff. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 

2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 

(9th Cir. 1998). Thus, the fact that a prisoner may have been in fear of attack does not give rise to a 

failure to protect claim. 

Plaintiff names prison officials at Wasco State Prison Reception and Corcoran Substance 

Abuse and Treatment Facility as Defendants, ranging from medical doctors to correctional counselors. 

With regard to all of these individuals, Plaintiff alleges only that each had knowledge of his custody 

classification by way of certain undetailed documentation; however, Plaintiff fails to allege or 

demonstrate that any of these individuals had the ability and failed to act to protect him from harm in 

his housing placement, despite knowledge of the risk of harm. Indeed, Plaintiff does not provide any 

factual support other than citation to undetailed documentation that each individual was on notice of 

his need to be placed in the sensitive need yards and not general population. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

837 (to exhibit deliberate indifference, a prison official “must both be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 

inference.”) While Plaintiff‟s allegations may very likely give rise to a cognizable claim for failure to 

protect, it is highly unlikely that Plaintiff may state a claim against over one hundred individuals, and 

Plaintiff must amend the complaint to allege facts to support that each of the named individual 

Defendants had personal knowledge and involvement in the failure to protect him from harm. 

With respect to correctional officer E. Aguirrre, Plaintiff contends that on November 13, 2014, 

he informed Aguirre that the prior night inmate Sikore beat him unconscious, perforated his right 

eardrum, possibly raped me while unconscious and threated him for being transgender. That morning 

inmate Napier threatened Plaintiff for being transgender. Officer Aguirre sent Plaintiff alone across 

the yard to the medical clinic. Plaintiff claims that Aguirre later admitted that he failed to protect 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient factual information to indicate whether officer Aguirre 

was aware of the potential threat to Plaintiff‟s safety by his placement in the general population prior 

to the alleged assault. Plaintiff alleges only that officer Aguirre was aware after the fact that an assault 

took place. Accordingly, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 5 of 8
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

E. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 

an inmate‟s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled 

in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that 

“the defendant‟s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 

to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

Plaintiff‟s bare claim that he did not receive sufficient medical attention following the attack is 

insufficient, factually, to support a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

F. Retaliation

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be free 

from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Also protected by the First Amendment is the 

right to pursue civil rights litigation in federal court without retaliation. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011). “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).

///

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 6 of 8
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

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim of retaliation, Plaintiff fails to set forth 

sufficient facts to support such claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. 

G. Loss of Personal Property

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due 

process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Prisoners have a protected interest in 

their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). However, while an 

authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process Clause, see Hudson 

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-

436 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), neither negligent nor unauthorized 

intentional deprivations of property by a governmental employee “constitute a violation of the 

procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful 

postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available,” Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. 

For an unauthorized deprivation of property, Plaintiff would have to allege that he lacks a 

meaningful state tort remedy for any unauthorized property deprivation (i.e., a deprivation not 

authorized by properly adopted regulations, procedures and policies). Plaintiff should note that for 

unauthorized deprivations of property, he does have an adequate post-deprivation remedy under 

California law and therefore, any attempt to pursue a claim under federal law for unauthorized taking 

of his property fails as a matter of law. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-817 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(citing Cal. Gov‟t Code §§ 810-895.) 

Plaintiff does not allege whether his property deprivation was authorized or unauthorized. 

Thus, the facts, as alleged by Plaintiff, fail to give rise to a cognizable claim for relief. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff is granted one final opportunity to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) 

days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of 

this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 7 of 8
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

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties 

and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a 

constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .

. .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes 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 superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All 

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.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint, filed September 10, 2015, is dismissed for failure 

to state a claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01092-AWI-SAB Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 8 of 8