Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03224/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03224-3/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CYMEYON HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RIOS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-3224-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff, a civil detainee, proceeds without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed his initial complaint with leave to amend on July 24, 2019. 

ECF No. 10. Plaintiff has since filed two amended complaints (ECF Nos. 14 & 18) which, 

substantively, address two entirely different incidents. The court will screen the later filed 

complaint, direct service for those defendants, and recommend that the defendants associated 

with the earlier filed complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 

Screening 

 I. Legal Standards 

 Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any time if it determines the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-03224-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972), a complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it 

fails to set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 

(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of 

his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 

a cause of action's elements will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint's allegations are 

true.” Id. (citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on the lack of cognizable 

legal theories or the lack of pleading sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories. 

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

 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 Hosp. 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). A pro se plaintiff must 

satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 

8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-563 (2007). 

 II. Analysis 

 Plaintiff alleges that, on August 19, 2019, he attempted to commit suicide. ECF No. 18 at 

3. As a consequence, medical officials directed that he be moved to a secure location where he 

could be carefully observed. Id. Plaintiff claims that the named defendants – Gebheart, Aube, 

and Curtis – were the correctional officers at California State Prison, Sacramento assigned with 

transporting him. Id. He alleges that, rather than following the directives of medical staff, these 

officers moved him to a separate holding cell where he was kept in full body restraints and 

afforded no medical observation. Id. Plaintiff claims that he suffered severe pain and lacerations 

to his wrists and ankles as a consequence of the restraints. Id. 

Case 2:18-cv-03224-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

 The court finds that these allegations taken as true and drawing reasonable inferences in 

plaintiff’s favor, are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim for medical deliberate 

indifference against the three named defendants. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth 

Amendment claim for medical deliberate indifference against defendant correctional officers 

Gebheart, Aube, and Curtis, employees at California State Prison, Sacramento; and 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 

case. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Defendants Rios and White be DISMISSED as parties to this action insofar as neither 

is alleged to have involvement in the incident alleged in the current operative complaint; and 

2. This matter be referred back to the undersigned to initiate service of process of the 

Eighth Amendment claim for medical deliberate indifference against defendants Gebheart, Aube, 

and Curtis pursuant to the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern 

District of California. 

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 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 11, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-03224-TLN-JDP Document 21 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 3