Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00063/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00063-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL K. HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.R. FOREMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00063-LJO-DLB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIMS AGAINST PSYCHE TECH

P. McKINNEY & THE INSTITUTIONAL

CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE

(Doc. 1) 

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff, Daryl K. Howard, (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in foram

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

January 12, 2007.

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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

Case 1:07-cv-00063-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 06/11/08 Page 1 of 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

2

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.

Civ. Pro. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a

plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support

the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and

unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171

(9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . .

.’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal

pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply

essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.

1982)). The court has screened this case and has found cognizable claims stated

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison

in Corcoran, California where plaintiff remains and was incarcerated at the time of the

allegations in his complaint. Plaintiff initially alleges that he has been subjected to “some form of

torture, in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the

United States Constitution. However, because plaintiff sets forth all of his factual allegations in

narrative form and fails to identify without specifically stating any specific rights he believes

were violated, some difficulty in ascertaining the precise bases for plaintiff’s claims results. In

his complaint, plaintiff appears to allege that the conditions of confinement for administrative

segregation inmates (which he is) are unconstitutional. The court finds that plaintiff has stated

Case 1:07-cv-00063-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 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

3

cognizable claims against, and has ordered that service is appropriate against them. However, as

to defendants Psych Tech P. McKinney and the Institutional Classification Committee, plaintiff

has failed to state a cognizable claim, and appears unable to ever do so. 

1. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

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 plainly 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. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or 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). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

Plaintiff has named a number of defendants in this action and has “Institutional

Classification Committee.” However, plaintiff fails to allege any facts for actions by the

Institutional Classification Committee that he feels were wrongful. Also, plaintiff names P.

McKinney, psyche tech, as a defendant. However, the only allegations as to McKinney’s actions

are that he explained to plaintiff what happened at the November 22, 2006 ICC hearing – that

plaintiff was to be on management status until plaintiff accepted a cell mate. The court is unable

to see how this action by McKinney might have risen to the level of a violation of plaintiff’s

constitutional rights.

II. Conclusion 

The court finds that has failed, and will be unable to state a claim against defendants

Case 1:07-cv-00063-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 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

4

Psych Tech P. McKinney and the Institutional Classification Committee of the named

defendants. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Psych Tech P. McKinney and the Institutional Classification Committee be dismissed

with prejudice. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 10, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00063-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 06/11/08 Page 4 of 4