Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00462-2/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

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

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Deandre Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on March 

29, 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 required, but 

DEANDRE SHEPARD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NATALIE CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00462-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 8
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

“[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). 

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 Kern Valley State Prison. The events alleged in the complaint 

occurred while Plaintiff was housed at California State Prison-Corcoran (“CSP-Cor”). Plaintiff names 

the following defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) Natalie Clark, Correctional 

Food Manager II; (2) Scott Folks, Supervising Correctional Cook; and (3) Connie Gibson, Warden.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff was assigned as “Scullary Worker” in the Level IV 

(SHU) kitchen at CSP-Cor. The assignment was arbitrarily made by the Inmate Assignment office 

and Plaintiff did not have the right to refuse or fail to perform the assignment. Plaintiff had no prior 

experience prior to being assigned to the position and he did not receive any training upon his 

assignment.

On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor, while stacking pots and pans. He 

injured his head, back and neck, leaving him to suffer continuously from chronic back pain and 

requiring use of a wheelchair and walker. The same day, Plaintiff’s job sit supervisor, Correctional 

Officer K. Alexander, prepared and submitted to his post supervisor the following documents: (1) 

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 8
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

Employee’s Report of Job Related Injury/Illness to Supervisor; (2) Occupational Accident Injury or 

Illness Investigation Report; and (3) Workers Compensation Claim Form. 

On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff completed and submitted a CDCR Form 602 (Inmate Appeal) to 

the Inmate Appeals Office. Plaintiff placed the appeal in a box marked “Appeals Box” in his housing 

unit. The appeal alleged that the injuries suffered by Plaintiff on July 30, 2012, were the result of 

unsafe work conditions, inadequate protective work gear (boots), lack of training, and lack of proper 

posted warning signs. Plaintiff requested that he be awarded damages for his injuries.

On September 21, 2012, the Appeals Office cancelled the appeal, asserting that it had not been 

received until September 20, 2012, and that it was untimely. On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff 

completed and submitted an Administrative Appeal challenging the cancellation, which was exhausted 

through the Directors Level of Review.

On February 21, 2013, the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board rejected 

Plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Clark, Folks and Gibson knew or should have known about 

the hazardous work conditions and lack of safety training in the Level IV kitchen at CSP-Cor. 

Plaintiff alleges a violation of his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishments in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff seeks damages, along with declaratory and injunctive relief. 

III. Deficiencies of Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a 

cognizable section 1983 claim. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. To assist Plaintiff, the Court 

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

should amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith, state a cognizable claim. 

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). 

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 3 of 8
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 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.

Although Plaintiff’s complaint is short, he fails to set forth sufficient facts upon which he bases 

his claims against the individual defendants. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, Plaintiff 

must set forth what each defendant did or failed to do that led to the violation of his constitutional 

rights. 

B. 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, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (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).

Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently link Defendants Clark, Folks and Gibson to his constitutional 

claim. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, then Plaintiff must set forth what each defendant did or failed to 

do that led to the violation of his constitutional rights.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring suit against Warden Gibson (or any other defendant)

based on the role of supervisor, he may not do so. Supervisory personnel may not be held liable under 

section 1983 for the actions of subordinate employees based on respondeat superior or vicarious 

liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep’t 

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 4 of 8
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

of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Moss, 711 F.3d at 967-68; Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “A supervisor may be liable only 

if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient 

causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” 

Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 989) (9th Cir. 2012) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915-16. “Under 

the latter theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive 

act if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of 

constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977

(citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff has not alleged that Warden Gibson (or any other defendant) was personally involved 

the constitutional deprivation or instituted a deficient policy.

C. Eleventh Amendment and Official Capacity

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring a damages claim against defendants in their official 

capacities, he may not do so. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits for monetary damages against 

a State, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities. Aholelei v. Dep’t of Public 

Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.2007). As such, the Eleventh Amendment bars any claim for 

monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities.

D. Eighth Amendment 

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners 

not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of confinement. 

Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) 

(quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and 

harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045

(citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which are devoid of 

legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of 

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 5 of 8
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

a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and 

citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. 

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in 

prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To 

maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials were deliberately 

indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas 

v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir.

2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th 

Cir. 1998).

Generally, claims regarding slippery floors, without more, do not state a claim for cruel and 

unusual punishment. See Thompson v. McMahon, 2013 WL 5220748, *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2013) 

(citing Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989)). Rather, there must be exacerbating 

conditions such that the water posed a serious, unavoidable threat to the safety of Plaintiff and other 

inmates. See Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 1996) (prisoner must plead exacerbating 

conditions which render him unable to provide for his own safety). 

Plaintiff alleges he slipped in water and fell while working in the SHU kitchen and Defendants 

failed to provide him adequate training, boots and warnings. However, Plaintiff fails to allege any 

facts or exacerbating circumstances to state a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Andrillion v. Stoic, 

2011 WL 2493655, *2-4 (D. Ariz. Jun. 23, 2011) (failure to provide prisoner with work boots when 

assigning him to work in wet and slippery conditions in the kitchen and who was injured failed to state 

a constitutional violation); Aronian v. Fresno County Jail, 2010 WL 5232969, *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 

2010) (jail inmate who complained of water leak and later slipped and fell failed to state a cognizable 

constitutional claim). Although Plaintiff alleges a safety issue, he has not alleged any facts or 

circumstances to suggest that Defendants’ conduct constituted a constitutional violation. Plaintiff will 

be given leave to cure this deficiency to the extent that he can do so in good faith. 

///

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 6 of 8
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

E. Declaratory Relief

Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights were violated. “A declaratory judgment, like other 

forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of judicial discretion, exercised in the 

public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village, 333 U.S. 426, 431 (1948). “Declaratory 

relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal 

relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy 

faced by the parties.” United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir.1985). In the event 

that this action reaches trial and the jury returns a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, the verdict will be a 

finding that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated. Accordingly, a declaration that a defendant 

violated Plaintiff’s rights is unnecessary.

F. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. However, Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at CSP-Cor. 

Instead, he has been transferred to Kern Valley State Prison. As a result, his claim for injunctive relief 

is now moot. See Holt v. Stockman, 2012 WL 259938, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan.25, 2012) (a prisoner’s claim 

for injunctive relief is rendered moot when he is transferred from the institution whose employees he 

seeks to enjoin); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2007). 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a cognizable 

section 1983 claim. However, 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). 

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 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 v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 7 of 8
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

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

Lacey, 693 F.3d at 927. 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 Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8 and for failure to state a cognizable section 1983 claim; 

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

amended complaint; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00462-BAM Document 12 Filed 08/11/14 Page 8 of 8