Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00387/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00387-3/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

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

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

C. MUNOZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-00387-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 6)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Michael LeNoir Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated 

this action on March 18, 2013. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on March 27, 2013, is 

currently before the Court for screening. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

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

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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 

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 1 of 10
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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the Sacramento County Main Jail. The events alleged in 

the complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names the 

following defendants: (1) C. Munoz, Lieutenant; (2) A. Perez, Correctional Sergeant; (3) Bueno, 

Correctional Sergeant; (4) R. Broomfield, Correctional Captain; (5) C. Gipson, Warden; (6) 

Karen Cribbs, Appeals Coordinator; (7) N. Pana, Appeals Coordinator; (8) S. Shelby, 

Correctional Guard; (9) J. Almaguer, Correctional Guard; (10) J. R. Alfaro, Correctional Guard; 

(11) Lt. F. Munoz, Lieutenant; and (12) Podsakoff, Correctional Guard.

Plaintiff’s complaint concerns three separate incidents occurring at different times during 

his incarceration at Corcoran State Prison. Given the lengthy nature of Plaintiff’s complaint, the 

Court summarizes Plaintiff’s allegations. 

The first incident occurred on July 20, 2012. Plaintiff alleges that he was “speared” by 

Inmate Prado while being escorted to his cell by Defendants Almaguer and Alfaro. Plaintiff had 

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 2 of 10
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

no prior incident with Inmate Prado. Although Plaintiff was seen by two nurses, and treated by 

one, he complains that Defendant Bueno failed to ensure his medical care. Plaintiff also 

complains about the investigation of the incident and the placement of Inmate Prado after the 

incident in a cell with a perforated door. Plaintiff asserts a claim against Defendants Almaguer 

and Alfaro for violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights for failure to protect 

him. He asserts a claim against Defendant Bueno for violation of his Due Process rights. He 

also asserts a claim against Defendants Munoz, Broomfield and Cavazos for failure to properly 

investigate the incident and failure to protect him. 

The second incident occurred on November 21, 2012. While Plaintiff was participating 

in outdoor recreation, Inmate Benjamin Quiroz yelled, “Watch out!” He pointed in the direction 

of Inmate Sandoval. Plaintiff saw Inmate Sandoval holding a half-pint milk carton. Inmate 

Sandoval then threw the container, which was full of an unknown liquid, at Plaintiff, striking him 

in the face and dousing him with liquid that smelled like urine. Inmate Sandoval then walked to 

the toilet and dipped the empty milk carton into it. Plaintiff immediately called out to the 

Recreation Officer, Defendant Shelby. Defendant Shelby continued to watch as Inmate 

Sandoval threw the contents of the milk carton at Plaintiff as Plaintiff ran around the inside of 

the cage. Defendant Shelby watched Inmate Sandoval throw urine and toilet water at Plaintiff 

approximately five or six times. Plaintiff then filled his hands with water from the faucet and 

threw it at Inmate Sandoval. Inmate Garcia, who was next to Inmate Sandoval, threw water at 

Inmate Sandoval. Defendant Shelby did not issue any orders to stop until Plaintiff retaliated. 

When Plaintiff said something to Defendant Shelby, Defendant Shelby then called for two 

correctional officers, Defendants Podsakoff and Hernandez, to escort the three inmates back to 

their housing unit. 

After the incident, Defendant Shelby wrote an RVR CDC 115 for “behavior that could 

lead to violence.” Defendant Shelby reported the incident in such a way that it gave the 

impression that only Plaintiff was involved. When Plaintiff attended his disciplinary hearing, 

Plaintiff admitted to retaliating by throwing water, but attempted to explain that he was not guilty 

of the alleged violation. Defendant Munoz, the hearing officer, imposed sanctions against 

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 3 of 10
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

Plaintiff, including loss of TV/radio, loss of personal property, loss of yard and solitary yard. 

After the hearing, Plaintiff was put in a holding cage, while Defendant Hood and an unknown 

officer entered Plaintiff’s cell and began ransacking it. Defendant Perez reportedly instructed the 

officers to take everything, including Plaintiff’s legal work. When Plaintiff was placed back in 

the cell, he was left with two sheets, a blanket and a mattress. 

The third incident began with an appeal/grievance submitted by Plaintiff on January 3, 

2013 complaining that Defendant Munoz had imposed unauthorized sanctions. The grievance 

was converted to a staff complaint. On February 4, 2013, Lt. Munoz had custody staff bring 

Plaintiff out of his assigned cell and taken to the rotunda. Lt. Munoz was there to interview 

Plaintiff about the staff complaint. During the last week of February or first week of March 

2013, Defendant Podsakoff appeared at Plaintiff’s assigned cell with Officer Vasquez. 

Defendant Podsakoff asked Plaintiff if he wanted to speak with the Captain, but Plaintiff 

declined. When Defendant Podsakoff later identified the Captain as Defendant Broomfield, 

Plaintiff did not believe he had any reason to speak with Defendant Broomfield. Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant Broomfield allowed his staff to take unauthorized actions against Plaintiff, 

including Sgt. Perez threatening to place a knife in Plaintiff’s mattress on February 21, 2013. 

On February 21, 2013, Lt. Munoz appeared at Plaintiff’s cell and said that he should have 

had Plaintiff sign a form when he interviewed Plaintiff. Plaintiff signed the form and dated it 

that day. 

On March 7, 2013, Lt. Munoz appeared at Plaintiff’s cell. There was no need to 

participate in any interview with Defendant Broomfield. 

On March 22, 2013, at mail call, Plaintiff received a response to his staff complaint, 

which was cancelled because Plaintiff allegedly refused to be interviewed by Defendant 

Broomfield. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Broomfield fabricated that he was the interviewer 

and supports Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Broomfield encouraged the misconduct by other 

defendants. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 4 of 10
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

III. Deficiencies of Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20. 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. To assist Plaintiff, the Court 

provides the pleading and legal standards that appear applicable to his claims. Plaintiff should 

amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith, are cognizable in this action. 

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff has not provided a short and plain statement of his claims. Plaintiff’s complaint 

exceeds thirty-five pages and concerns multiple incidents spanning nearly one year. If Plaintiff 

elects to amend his complaint, he must set forth a short and plain statement of the allegations

against each defendant. 

B. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20

Plaintiff is raising numerous claims based on different events. Plaintiff may not bring 

unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); 

Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim 

arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and 

(2) there are commons questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 

130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 

623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 5 of 10
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

20(a) will the Court review the other claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), 

which permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party.

Plaintiff may not assert multiple claims against unrelated defendants in this action. That 

the defendants all work at the same facility is not sufficient to support joinder of claims. Indeed, 

Plaintiff may not bring a single action for unrelated incidents occurring while he was housed at 

Corcoran State Prison. For example, Plaintiff may not pursue a failure to protect claim arising 

out of an incident on July 12, 2012, while simultaneously pursuing another failure to protect 

claim arising out of an unrelated incident in November 2012. In his amended complaint, 

Plaintiff shall choose which claims he wishes to pursue in this action. If Plaintiff does not do so 

and his amended complaint sets forth unrelated claims which violate joinder rules, the Court will 

dismiss the claims it finds to be improperly joined. 

C. Supervisory Liability

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants Gibson and Broomfield (or any other 

defendant) liable based upon their supervisory positions, he may not do so. Liability may not be 

imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the 

theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77; 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). 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); 

Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); 

Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).

D. Claims Arising from Inmate Appeals

Certain of Plaintiff’s claims arise from Defendants’ involvement in the inmate appeals 

process. Plaintiff cannot pursue any claims against staff relating to their involvement in the 

administrative review of his inmate appeals. The existence of an inmate appeals process does 

not create a protected liberty interest upon which Plaintiff may base a claim that he was denied a 

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 6 of 10
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

particular result or that the appeals process was deficient. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 

(9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 

section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate personal involvement in the underlying violation of his 

rights, Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934, and liability may not be based merely on 

Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the administrative process or a decision on a grievance, Ramirez, 

334 F.3d at 860; Mann, 855 F.2d at 640.

E. Eighth Amendment – 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). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide 

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (quotations omitted). Prison officials 

have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to 

protect inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment 

violation where prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the 

plaintiff. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. 

July 2012 Incident

Plaintiff has not stated a claim arising out of his alleged spearing by Inmate Prado. 

Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that Defendants Almaguer and Alfaro knew that he was 

at risk from harm at the hands of Inmate Prado prior to the incident. 

November 2012 Incident

Plaintiff has not stated a claim arising out of his being doused with toilet water and urine 

by Inmate Sandoval. Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that Defendant Shelby knew of a 

risk of harm to Plaintiff prior to the incident. 

F. Eighth Amendment - Medical Care

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 

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 7 of 10
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

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 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

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 has failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical need 

against Defendant Bueno. Plaintiff admits that he was seen by two nurses and treated by one. 

His allegations involving Defendant Bueno do not establish that Plaintiff failed to receive 

treatment or that Defendant Bueno was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. 

G. Due Process-Disciplinary Proceedings

The Due Process Clause protects Plaintiff against the deprivation of liberty without the 

procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 

221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005). To state a claim, Plaintiff must first identify the interest at stake. 

Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221. Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause or from 

state law. Id. The Due Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in 

avoiding more adverse conditions of confinement, id. at 221-22 (citations and quotation marks 

omitted), and under state law, the existence of a liberty interest created by prison regulations is 

determined by focusing on the nature of the condition of confinement at issue, id. at 222-23 

(citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995)) (quotation marks 

omitted). Liberty interests created by prison regulations are generally limited to freedom from 

restraint which imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 8 of 10
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

incidents of prison life. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221 (citing Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484) (quotation 

marks omitted); Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth no facts demonstrating that he was deprived of a protected 

liberty interest as a result of the disciplinary proceeding. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221; Sandin, 

515 U.S. at 484. Additionally, there are no facts describing what procedural protections Plaintiff 

was allegedly deprived of related to his disciplinary hearing. 

H. Deprivation of Property

Plaintiff appears to complain about the deprivation of his legal property. While an 

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

neither a negligent nor intentional unauthorized deprivation of property by a prison official is 

actionable if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available for the loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 

468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 

(9th Cir.1984).

To the extent Plaintiff claims that his legal property was intentionally taken as a form of 

retaliation, this is an unauthorized, intentional deprivation. Due Process is therefore satisfied if 

there is a meaningful post-deprivation remedy available to Plaintiff. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. 

Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy available under California law. Barnett v. 

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–17 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Cal. Gov't Code §§ 810–895). Accordingly, 

Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for the alleged deprivation of his legal property.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

8, 18 and 20 and fails to state a cognizable claim. As noted above, the Court will provide 

Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the identified deficiencies. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Since Plaintiff must comply with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 18, his amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages. 

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

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 9 of 10
10

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

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555 (citations omitted). Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty, Ariz., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20; 

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

second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint may not exceed twenty-five 

(25) pages; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00387-BAM Document 12 Filed 11/17/14 Page 10 of 10