Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06015/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06015-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

CHARLES EDWARD JAMISON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

S. HATTON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 19-06015 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and former officials at the Correctional 

Training Facility (“CTF”) in Soledad and against unknown officials at the CDCR. (Docket 

No. 1, “Compl.”) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be 

addressed in a separate order. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

Case 5:19-cv-06015-BLF Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff claims that Defendants caused him to contract Valley Fever, “a lifelong 

crippling disease.” (Compl. Attach. at 3(3).) According to Plaintiff, Valley Fever is a 

parasitic disease caused by exposure to airborne fungal spores of Coccidioides organisms 

found in the soil in certain locations of California; the spores are inhaled following a 

disturbance of contaminated soil, for example by construction or remodeling projects or 

dust storms, windstorms and earthquakes. (Id.) He claims that around the week of June 

20, 2016, he began to experience flu-like symptoms, for which he sought medical 

attention. (Id. at 3(4).) He was diagnosed with Valley Fever on December 19, 2016. (Id.

at 3(5).) Plaintiff claims that he contracted Valley Fever as a result of construction of a 

medical facility at CTF’s Central Facility. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that neither CTF nor the 

construction company took preventive measures to ensure that harmful antigens were not 

released into the air within the facility’s corridors and adjacent building, nor was he 

provided with any type of facial mask to filter out harmful elements from the air. (Id.) 

Plaintiff claims that the infliction of this lifelong crippling disease amounts to cruel and 

unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 3(1).) Plaintiff seeks 

declaratory relief and damages. (Id. at 3(7), 3(8).) 

Plaintiff’s attempt to state an Eighth Amendment claim fails for insufficient facts. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner receives in prison 

Case 5:19-cv-06015-BLF Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth 

Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). A prison official violates 

the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must 

be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 

U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of 

mind, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). The requisite state of mind in prison-conditions 

cases is one of “deliberate indifference.” See, e.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (inmate 

safety); Helling, 509 U.S. at 32-33 (inmate health); Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-03 (general 

conditions of confinement); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (inmate health). 

Assuming Plaintiff’s allegations satisfy the first prong for an Eighth Amendment 

claim, he fails to satisfy the second prong, i.e., that Defendants possess a sufficiently 

culpable state of mind. Nowhere in the complaint does Plaintiff allege that any of the 

named Defendants knew that the construction would expose inmates to airborne fungal 

spores that would result in them contracting Valley Fever, and that Defendants proceeded 

with the project despite this knowledge. There are simply no factual allegations in this 

regard to satisfy the subjective requirement for an Eighth Amendment claim. See Farmer, 

511 U.S. at 834. A prison official cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for 

denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the standard for criminal 

recklessness is met, i.e., the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate 

health or safety. Id. at 837. The 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. See id. An Eighth Amendment claimant need not show, however, that 

a prison official acted or failed to act believing that harm actually would befall an inmate; 

it is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial 

risk of serious harm. See id. at 842. A heightened pleading standard applies to the 

subjective prong of Eighth Amendment claims: the plaintiff must make nonconclusory 

allegations supporting an inference of unlawful intent. Alfrey v. United States, 276 F.3d 

Case 5:19-cv-06015-BLF Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

557, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying standard to Bivens Eighth Amendment claim). 

Plaintiff shall be afforded an opportunity to file an amended complaint to state sufficient 

facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim. 

In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should also keep the following 

principles in mind. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 

only if Plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a 

federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. 

City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a 

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

participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally 

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 

F.2d at 633. Accordingly, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts describing each named 

defendant’s actions or failure to act that caused the violation of his Eighth Amendment 

rights. 

Lastly, Plaintiff names “unknown defendants 1-20,” referring to as yet unnamed 

state officials of the CDCR, as defendants in this action. (Compl. Attach. at 3(3).) 

Although the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored in the Ninth Circuit, 

see Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980); Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 

406 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1968), situations may arise where the identity of alleged 

defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the 

plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown 

defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover their identities or that the 

complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642; 

Velasquez v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 1986). Accordingly, Plaintiff is 

advised that should he name any “John Doe” defendants in an amended complaint, those 

defendants will be dismissed from this action. If, through discovery, Plaintiff is able to 

identify any unknown defendants, he may then motion the Court for leave to amend to 

Case 5:19-cv-06015-BLF Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

name the intended defendants and to issue summons upon them. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 

642; Barsten v. Dep’t of the Interior, 896 F.2d 422, 423–24 (9th Cir. 1990). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight (28) 

days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the 

court’s form complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 

number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 19-06015 BLF (PR), and the words 

“AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on 

the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended 

complaint supersedes the original, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original 

complaint. Claims not included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and 

defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 

complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without 

prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy of this 

order to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\06015Jamison_dwlta 

Case 5:19-cv-06015-BLF Document 8 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 5