Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01134-5/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 

LEON E. MORRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JENNINGS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01134 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS & 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 8, 2013, plaintiff’s complaint was 

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff has filed a first 

amended complaint. ECF No. 11. By separate order, this court dismissed plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment and retaliation claims alleged in the first amended complaint, but granted plaintiff 

one additional opportunity to amend those claims. The instant order shall address plaintiff’s 

verbal harassment claim. 

I. Screening Requirement 

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

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 13 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘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 Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 127 S. 

Ct. at 1965. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 

allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and 

resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

II. Allegations in First Amended Complaint 

 The gravamen of the first amended complaint is plaintiff’s contention that numerous 

prison guards served him food under unsanitary conditions between September 2007 through 

June 2010. ECF No. 11 at 3-4. With respect to the verbal harassment claim, plaintiff alleges that 

when he reminded the prison guards that they were supposed to wear hairnets while serving food 

he was “ignored, cussed out, [or] talked real bad too....” ECF No. 11 at 5. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 13 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 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 

3

III. Analysis 

 In this court’s order of November 8, 2013, plaintiff was advised that verbal harassment or 

abuse alone is not sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 

Oltarzewski v.Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff once again alleges that 

guards used profane and derogatory words when responding to his complaints about their failure 

to wear hairnets or to properly cover the food they were serving. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed 

to cure the deficiency previously identified by the court with respect to this claim. See Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448–49 (9th Cir. 

1987). Based on the record in this case, the undersigned recommends that further leave to amend 

is not warranted. Therefore, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable 

claim for relief under § 1983 for verbal harassment and recommends that this claim be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be randomly assigned to a district 

court judge. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s verbal harassment claim raised in 

his first amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: June 12, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01134-TLN-DB Document 13 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 3