Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00451/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00451-0/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 

MORIANO MILLARE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. MURPHY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-0451-WBS-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. 

I. Screening Requirement and Standards 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, 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.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 9
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 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Analysis 

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

Plaintiff alleges various claims against staff at Deuel Vocational Institute (“DVI”), where 

plaintiff was housed at the time of the allegations. ECF No. 1 at 8, 12. He also asserts a related 

claim against an appeals examiner at the Inmate Appeals Board (“IAB”) for the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 

Plaintiff alleges the following. He is restricted to a lower bunk due to a disability. Id. at 

12. On October 23, 2018, DVI officers inspected plaintiff’s cell while he was not there. Id. at 13. 

When plaintiff returned, he found that the cell was “trashed,” all the electrical outlets and light 

fixtures had been removed, and some of his property was missing. Id. Plaintiff tried to ask 

building officers about the condition of his cell and his missing property, but they ignored him. 

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 9
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 

Id. Plaintiff submitted CDCR form 22 requests on the subject on several occasions at the end of 

October. Id. at 13-14. He also filed a grievance. Id. at 14. 

On October 30, 2018, defendant Vivero came to plaintiff’s cell and asked why plaintiff 

was submitting so many form 22s. Id. Plaintiff told Vivero that all the lights and outlets were 

removed from his cell and that he had been sitting in the dark with no lights or power all week. 

Id. Vivero told plaintiff that the form 22s were not going to solve the problem and angrily 

ordered plaintiff to stop submitting them. Id. He entered plaintiff’s cell, and plaintiff showed 

him where the electrical outlets and light fixtures had been. Id. Plaintiff told Vivero that no one 

was assigned to the top bunk but that plaintiff was restricted to the lower bunk due to disability. 

Id. Vivero then left. Id.

The next day, staff came to plaintiff’s cell and fixed the light fixture and electrical outlet 

above the upper bunk. Id. When plaintiff asked why they were not fixing the same items above 

the lower bunk, they told him that they had been instructed only to repair above the top bunk. Id. 

Later that day, Vivero returned some of plaintiff’s form 22 requests to him. Id. at 15-16. He told 

plaintiff that the light fixtures in the cell were not part of the cell’s design and had been installed 

by inmates. Id. at 16. Similarly, on November 1, 2018, Ms. Starr returned another form 22 to 

plaintiff and told him that the lower bunk electrical outlet in his cell was contraband. Id.

On December 1, 2018, defendant Jackson interviewed plaintiff about his grievance. Id. 

Plaintiff told Jackson that the upper bunk fixtures had been replaced but not the lower bunk 

fixtures. Id. He told Jackson that the upper bunk light was beyond the safe reach of plaintiff and 

that it provided no light for plaintiff to read while sitting or lying on his bed. Id. Plaintiff asked 

to be moved to a cell with a functioning lower bunk light fixture and electrical outlet. Id. 

Jackson told plaintiff that he would look into the matter. Id. But he did not recommend 

repair of the lower bunk fixtures or rehousing plaintiff in a cell with functioning lower bunk 

fixtures. Id. Instead, Jackson denied plaintiff’s grievance because the light fixtures and outlets 

inside plaintiff’s cell had been installed illegitimately with materials likely stolen from CDCR. 

Id. 

///// 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 9
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 

Defendant Johnson also reviewed plaintiff’s grievance. Id. at 17. He agreed with 

Jackson’s findings and denied the grievance. Id. Plaintiff forwarded the appeal for second level 

review, complaining that staff had repaired the upper fixtures but had deliberately failed to fix the 

lower fixtures. Id. Plaintiff noted that all other DVI inmates enjoyed an outlet and light fixture 

compatible with their housing assignment. Id. Defendant Vivero reviewed the grievance at the 

second level and denied it for the same reasons as Jackson and Johnson. Id. at 17-18. Defendant 

Kesterson also reviewed the appeal and denied it for those reasons. Id.

On or about January 29, 2019, plaintiff injured his back and both legs trying to operate the 

electrical outlet and light fixture above the upper bunk. Id. It is not clear from the complaint 

whether the cell contained any other sources of light or electricity. 

Plaintiff forwarded his appeal to the third level of review on February 4, 2019. Id. 

Defendant Murphy denied the appeal on May 6, 2019. Id. None of the staff who reviewed 

plaintiff’s grievance recommended repair of the lower fixtures or rehousing plaintiff to a cell with 

operational features above the low bunk. Id. at 16-18. 

Plaintiff notes that it was never claimed that he had made the illegitimate installation of 

the light fixture and outlet and, in fact, he did not do so. Id. at 18-19. Plaintiff endured the 

situation in his cell until his transfer to another prison on January 7, 2020. Id. at 19. Thus, 

plaintiff was without adequate lighting in his lower bunk for 14 months. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that, by ordering the removal of his light and outlet and then failing to 

recommend that the fixtures be repaired or that he be moved to a cell with operational features for 

the lower bunk, defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment, the equal protection 

clause of the 14th Amendment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

B. Analysis 

 Eighth Amendment 

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

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

2006). Where the plaintiff challenges his conditions of confinement, he must allege facts 

showing: (1) that the deprivation was sufficiently serious to violate the Eighth Amendment and 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 9
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 

(2) the defendant prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 

726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). 

Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim; that is, 

deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate 

shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731 

(citations omitted). “The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of these necessities 

must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.” Id. 

To allege deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must state facts showing that the defendant 

official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health or safety. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “[T]he 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.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. 

Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the defendants were aware that the light fixture and 

outlet had been removed from the lower bunk. Plaintiff has also adequately alleged that he 

informed them that he needed the light because he was unable to use the light above the upper 

bunk. What is less clear is whether the light in plaintiff’s cell was so deficient that it may form 

the basis of an Eighth Amendment claim. 

“Adequate lighting is one of the fundamental attributes of ‘adequate shelter’ required by 

the Eighth Amendment.” Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 1985). In Hoptowit, 

the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s finding of unconstitutional lighting conditions 

because evidence showed that the lighting was so poor that it was inadequate for reading, caused 

eyestrain and fatigue, and hindered attempts to maintain basic sanitary conditions. Id. Plaintiff 

has not alleged that his cell was so dark that his health was at risk from his inability to maintain 

basic sanitation. It also appears from the complaint that plaintiff’s reading was hindered only 

when he was sitting or lying on his bunk, which suggests that the light elsewhere in the cell was 

adequate for reading. Because the facts alleged do not establish that plaintiff could not read in 

any place in his cell (that was accessible to him) or that the cell was so dark that plaintiff could 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 9
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 

6 

not maintain its basic cleanliness, the court will dismiss the claim with leave to amend. See

Hollis v. York, No. 1:09-cv-00463-OWW-SKO PC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109820, at *44-45 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2010) (“The Court is unaware of any precedent that suggests that the relevant 

legal standard for constitutional lighting conditions is whether an inmate can read from the 

comfort of his or her bunk.”). 

Equal Protection 

“To state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a plaintiff must show that 

the defendant acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his 

membership in a protected class.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(citation omitted). Alternatively, a plaintiff may state an equal protection claim if he shows that 

similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship 

to a legitimate government purpose. Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) 

(citations omitted). 

Construed liberally, and solely for the purposes of screening under § 1915A, plaintiff has 

stated a potentially cognizable equal protection claim against all defendants. 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Lovell v. Chandler, 

303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim for violation of Title II, a plaintiff must 

allege facts showing that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was excluded 

from participation in, or otherwise discriminated against with regard to, a public entity’s services, 

programs, or activities; and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was because of the disability. Id. 

Construed liberally, and solely for the purposes of screening under § 1915A, plaintiff has 

stated a potentially cognizable ADA claim against all defendants. 

Plaintiff may choose to proceed only with his equal protection and ADA claims. 

Alternatively, he may choose to amend his complaint to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment 

claim. 

The court cautions plaintiff that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 

persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 6 of 9
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 

7 

rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to 

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also 

include any allegations based on state law that are so closely to his federal allegations that “the 

form the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring multiple, unrelated claims 

against more than one defendant. Id.

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it is complete in itself without 

reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Red. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

III. Order 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, for screening purposes, potentially cognizable equal 

protection and ADA claims against all defendants. 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 7 of 9
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 

8 

2. All other claims are dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days from the date of 

service of this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint. 

3. Within thirty days plaintiff shall return the notice below advising the court whether 

he elects to proceed with the claims recognized by this order as potentially 

cognizable or whether he intends to file an amended complaint. If the former 

option is selected and returned, the court will enter an order directing service at 

that time. 

4. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 

action. 

DATED: April 23, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 8 of 9
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 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORIANO MILLARE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. MURPHY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-0451-WBS-EFB P 

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROCEED OR 

AMEND 

In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby elects to: 

(1) ______ proceed only with his equal protection and ADA claims against defendants; 

 

OR 

 (2) ______ delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. 

 _________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Dated: 

Case 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP Document 7 Filed 04/23/20 Page 9 of 9