Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01590/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01590-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON LEE JONES, ) 1:13-cv-01590 AWI GSA PC

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

 ) FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

 v. ) NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGESS TO

 ) PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS 

) FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE 

JAMES HARTLEY, et al., )

 ) RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 

 Defendants. )

 )

 

I. Screening Requirement

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

action 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).

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). 

Case 1:13-cv-01590-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 4
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

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

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

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 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. P. 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. 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)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

A. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Rehabilitation Center at Norco, brings this civil rights 

action against the CDCR and the warden at Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s health, resulting in injury 

to Plaintiff. 

Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that, as an African American, he is 

particularly susceptible to Valley Fever, a soil based fungal disease that is endemic to the area 

where Avenal State Prison is located. Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to Avenal State 

Prison on March 12, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that “the State of California was known that 

segments of the inmate population were at risk for contracting Valley Fever.” Plaintiff alleges 

that Warden Hartley knew about the risk of Plaintiff contracting Valley Fever, yet ordered that 

the watering of the grass at Avenal to cease. Plaintiff alleges that only after he (and others) 

contracted Valley Fever, did the Warden resume watering in order to cut down on the dust.

Case 1:13-cv-01590-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 4
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

The Court finds that, as to Defendant Hartley, Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief. 

Plaintiff has alleged fact, liberally construed, that Warden Hartley should have known of the 

danger to Plaintiff, yet disregarded that danger. 

As to CDCR Director Beard, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations to be conclusory. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to ASP pursuant to order of Director Beard, but does not 

allege any facts indicating that Beard knew of a particular harm, and was aware of Plaintiff’s 

transfer to Avenal. Director Beard may not be held liable solely based on is official or 

supervisory capacity. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a government official 

cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must 

plead that the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at 

673. In other words, to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link Director 

Beard each with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff’s 

federal rights.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states claims under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant

Hartley for deliberate indifference. However, the complaint does not state any other cognizable 

claims. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint 

curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. 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).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding 

only on the claims identified in this order as cognizable, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in 

writing, and the Court will issue a recommendation for dismissal of Defendant Beard, and will 

forward to Plaintiff one summons and one USM-285 form for completion and return. Upon 

receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process.

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth 

v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

Case 1:13-cv-01590-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll 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 to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 

complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendant Hartley for 

deliberate indifference; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will be recommend that this 

action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01590-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 05/08/14 Page 4 of 4