Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00657/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00657-1/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 

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 

LARVESTER JOHNSON, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE 

FACILITY PRISON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0657-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

///// 

///// 

 1

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

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local 

Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-00657-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

II. 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. 

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). 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00657-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

III. Screening Order 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to § 1915A and finds 

that it must be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff names the 

California Healthcare Facility and Warden Brian Duffy as defendants. He alleges that after being 

“written up,” he was placed on “C” status and then seen by the classification committee. The 

committee took him off of “C” status and removed him from segregation. About a month later, 

the committee removed plaintiff from his job and placed him back on “C” status as a program 

failure. Plaintiff claims that being put back on “C” status violated his right against double 

jeopardy and deprived him of due process. He also claims his Eighth Amendment rights were 

violated. Under the applicable standards, discussed below, plaintiff fails to state a proper claim 

for relief. To proceed, he must file an amended complaint. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 

for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009). Instead, he must identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. He 

must also plead facts showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged violation. 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendant Warden Duffy because he does not include 

any factual allegations linking him to a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. The 

alleged supervisory role of Duffy, as Warden, is not a proper basis for liability. 

In addition, the California Healthcare Facility is not a “person” subject to a § 1983 

lawsuit. State agencies, such as CDCR and its prisons, are immune from suit under the Eleventh 

Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Lucas v. Dep’t 

Case 2:15-cv-00657-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that prisoner’s Eighth 

Amendment claims against CDCR for damages and injunctive relief were barred by Eleventh 

Amendment immunity); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) 

(Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agencies). 

To state a due process claim, petitioner must show that a constitutionally protected liberty 

interest is implicated. Baumann v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 754 F.2d 841, 844 (9th Cir. 

1985). A state may create a constitutionally protected liberty interest if it establishes regulatory 

measures that impose substantive limitations on the exercise of official discretion. Hewitt v. 

Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 470-71 (1983), overruled in part by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 

(1995). 

 A state prisoner does not have a liberty interest in a classification status under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987); see 

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976) (Due Process Clause not implicated by federal 

prisoner classification and eligibility for rehabilitative programs, even where inmate suffers 

“grievous loss”). In addition, there is no protected liberty interest in obtaining or maintaining 

work while incarcerated. Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (Due Process 

Clause “does not create a property or liberty interest in prison employment”). 

 Thus, any protected liberty interest in petitioner’s prison classification or employment 

must arise from state law. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484 (liberty interests arising out of prison 

regulations are generally limited to freedom from restraint that “imposes atypical and significant 

hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”). Here, the State of California has 

affirmatively rejected creating a protected liberty or property interest in work classifications or 

prison employment. Cal. Const. art. XIV § 5(c) (stating that “[n]othing in this section [regarding 

contracts for inmate labor] shall be interpreted as creating a right of inmates to work”); see also 

Cal. Pen. Code § 2933 (“[w]orktime credit is a privilege, not a right”). Moreover, California has 

not created a protected liberty interest in an inmate’s custody classification. See Myron v. 

Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827 (9th Cir. 

1997) (regarding inmates classified as sex offenders). 

Case 2:15-cv-00657-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 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 

5

 Because plaintiff has no constitutionally protected liberty interest in a particular 

classification status or in prison employment, his claims of being deprived of those interests 

cannot form a basis for a due process claim. 

Plaintiff also fails to state a double jeopardy claim because the Double Jeopardy Clause 

applies only to criminal penalties. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 95-96 (1997); see also 

United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir. 1995) (prison disciplinary sanctions do not 

violate the prohibition against double jeopardy); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) 

(prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution). 

Moreover, there is no apparent basis for finding a violation of plaintiff’s rights under the 

Eighth Amendment. 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). To show a violation of the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must allege 

facts sufficient to support a claim that prison officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk 

of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Frost v. 

Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a 

conditions of confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized 

measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment 

violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). A mere threat of physical harm is not a 

constitutional wrong. See Gaut v Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Likewise, verbal 

harassment alone does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 

(9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if plaintiff can allege a 

cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that 

cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 

(district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 

their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 

shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00657-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 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 

6

Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, 

unrelated claims. Further, any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above 

and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. 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). It must also contain a caption 

including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. 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)). 

Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See Local Rule 110. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 6, 8) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended 

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First Amended 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00657-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/21/16 Page 6 of 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 

7

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed for failure 

to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will 

proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: June 21, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00657-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/21/16 Page 7 of 7