Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04465/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS R. WOODSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

P. RIVERA et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04465 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS, REVIEWING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT,

ORDERING SERVICE OF

COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

AND DISMISSING NONCOGNIZABLE CLAIMS

Plaintiff Thomas R. Woodson, a state prisoner currently

incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison, filed this civil rights

complaint when he was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP). 

The events giving rise to this complaint occurred while Plaintiff

was housed at SVSP. On July 11, 2006, the Court issued an Order of

Dismissal with Leave to Amend and Denying Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis Without Prejudice (July 11, 2006 Order). On August 10,

2006, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), which the

Court now reviews to determine whether it states cognizable claims

for relief.

In the July 11, 2006 Order, the Court indicated that, in his

original complaint, Plaintiff had attempted to state claims against

Defendants for the use of excessive force and for deliberate

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Neither the complaint nor the FAC provide Defendants' first

names.

2

indifference to his mental and physical health and safety needs. 

The Court concluded that the excessive force claim had to be

dismissed because "Plaintiff has not identified with sufficient

specificity the actions of Defendants that rise to the level of

excessive force. In support of his claim he says that he was

'handcuffed and manhandled' by correctional officers Aldana, P.

Rivera and Machuca, and that he was 'assaulted' by correctional

officers Rocha, Burk and Ortega. Standing alone, however, these

conclusory descriptions of what occurred do not allege facts which

state a claim for relief, nor do they put the individual Defendants

on notice of the alleged unconstitutional conduct in which they

engaged." In regard to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for

deliberate indifference, the Court concluded that although

Plaintiff's allegations "that he was placed in a cramped cell

without adequate clothing or a place to lie down for nineteen and

then twenty-nine hours might state a claim for relief, he has

failed to identify with specificity the correctional officers who

placed him in the cell or refused to respond to his complaints." 

The Court also concluded that Plaintiff's allegations of ridicule

by certain COs and placement in an unsanitary cell did not state a

constitutionally cognizable claim for relief.1

 

In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges that on January 11, 2005,

without explanation, he was ordered by correction officer (CO)

Machuca to "hand cuff up" and exit his cell. When Plaintiff

"calmly" asked where he was being taken, CO Machuca and CO P.

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Rivera grabbed him violently by his wrists and arms. "Plaintiff's

wrists and arms were bent upwards using excessive and unnecessary

force on a non-combative, complying Plaintiff. Plaintiff was

slammed against the wall in D-7 building rotunda by COs Machuca and

P. Rivera causing severe pain to Plaintiff's chest, arms, wrist and

back. . . . CO Aldana stepped up and placed his right leg on the

inside of Plaintiff's right leg scraping Plaintiff's right inside

ankle with his thick black boot. . . . Subsequently, Plaintiff was

escorted by . . . Machuca, P. Rivera, [and] Aldana from D-7

building to D-1, D-2 building. Plaintiff's arms and wrists being

painfully bent and twisted by COs Machuca and P. Rivera the whole

way." When they arrived at D-1 building, Sergeant Washington

ordered his subordinates to put Plaintiff's nose up against the

wall. "CO Rocha grabbed the back of Plaintiff's neck . . . while

CO P. Rivera and CO Machuca had the right and left arms and wrist." 

Plaintiff was slammed up against a wall by all three COs, with CO

Rocha pressing Plaintiff's face up against the wall, injuring

Plaintiff's nose. Plaintiff felt the hands of COs Burk, Ortega and

Aldana pressing violently into his back. When Plaintiff was moved

to cage #1, he was "snatched off the wall violently by both arms by

COs Machuca and P. Rivera, pushed in the back by CO Rocha, then

dragged by COs P. Rivera and Machuca with COs Rocha, Burk, Ortega

and Aldana grabbing and pushing Plaintiff's body wherever they

could find an opening." Plaintiff heard Sgt. Washington say to one

of his subordinates, "leave his ass in there all night."

Plaintiff was then left in cage #1, which was a standing room

only cage, for nineteen hours. The cage was cold and Plaintiff was

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

wearing only his boxer underwear and a thin tee-shirt. There was

no lavatory, so Plaintiff had to relieve himself in the cage and 

stand in a pool of urine. Plaintiff was finally taken to an

outdoor dog run cage where he collapsed and laid on the cold cement

for more than five hours. CO Rocha returned the following day,

"cuffed Plaintiff and violently clutched Plaintiff's arm, escorting

Plaintiff back to the building D-1 cage [cage #1]. . . . When

Plaintiff refused [to go into the cage], CO Rocha specifically and

violently grabbed Plaintiff by the neck with his right hand

partially choking Plaintiff and shoving him back in the cage again

smashing Plaintiff's face to the back of the cage." After about

five more hours in this cage, Plaintiff was escorted to cell 223 in

building D-2. There was human feces on the floor in cell 223. 

"Plaintiff sat in the seething hot cell with live human feces and

the stench for at least an hour before CO Smith returned with an

insulting half a dixie cup of liquid hand soap and an inch square

of green abrasive pad" to clean the cell. 

Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of this treatment, he

suffered severe trauma physically, mentally and emotionally. He

claims that he now has severe nerve and muscle damage in his back

and suffers back pain discomfort and spasms. He also alleges that

he has taken pain medication since this incident and is not able to

engage in the activities he was accustomed to doing.

Plaintiff requests compensatory and punitive damages and

injunctive relief.

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

I. Excessive Force

In order to state a claim for the use of excessive force in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff must allege facts

which, if proven, would establish that prison officials applied

force "maliciously and sadistically to cause harm," rather than in

a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). 

Although Plaintiff fails specifically to allege that

Defendants did not apply the force in a good-faith effort to

maintain or restore discipline, he does allege that, without

knowing the reasons for such treatment, he was taken out of his

cell and assaulted unnecessarily by the above-named Defendants. 

This is sufficient to establish that, to Plaintiff's knowledge, the

force applied to him was not undertaken to maintain or restore

discipline. The Court finds that the above allegations

sufficiently allege against COs Machuca, P. Rivera, Aldana and

Rocha and Sgt. Washington an Eighth Amendment claim of excessive

force. This claim against Defendant Smith is dismissed.

II. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but

neither does it permit inhumane ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and

the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny

under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31

(1993). In its prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment," the

Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

not, for example, use excessive force against prisoners. Hudson,

503 U.S. at 6-7. The Amendment also imposes duties on these

officials, who must provide all prisoners with the basic

necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation,

medical care and personal safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832;

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189,

199-200 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir.

1982). 

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be,

objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the prison official

possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 834.

Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Washington intentionally ordered

his subordinates to place Plaintiff in a cage with inhumane living

conditions and keep him there for over twenty-four hours. This is

sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference against

Sgt. Washington. Plaintiff's allegation that CO Rocha pushed

Plaintiff back into cage #1 for five hours is insufficient to state

a claim for deliberate indifference against him. Plaintiff's

allegations that CO Smith placed Plaintiff in cell 223 with human

feces on the floor and brought him a half a dixie cup of hand soap

and a square inch of green abrasive pad to clean it up are

insufficient to state a claim against CO Smith. The deliberate

indifference claim against COs P. Rivera, Machuca, Aldona, Rocha

and Smith is dismissed.

As in the original complaint, the allegations of ridicule by

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

certain COs do not state a cognizable claim. See e.g., Keenan v.

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended 135 F.3d 1318

(9th Cir. 1998) (disrespectful comments by prison guard

insufficient to implicate Eighth Amendment). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for money damages for

excessive force against COs Machuca, P. Rivera, Aldana and Rocha

and Sgt. Washington. Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for money

damages for cruel and unusual punishment against Sgt. Washington. 

Because Plaintiff is no longer housed at SVSP, his requests for

injunctive relief are DENIED AS MOOT. All other claims against all

other Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall mail to Sgt. Washington and

COs Machuca, P. Rivera, Aldana and Rocha a Notice of Lawsuit and

Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver

of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint (Docket #1) and the

amended complaint (Docket #6), all attachments thereto, and a copy

of this Order. The Clerk shall also mail a copies of these

documents to the Attorney General of the State of California. In

addition, the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff.

4. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure requires them to cooperate in saving unnecessary

costs of service of the summons and complaint. Pursuant to Rule 4,

if any Defendant, after being notified of this action and asked by

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

the Court, on behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons,

fails to do so, said Defendant will be required to bear the cost of

such service unless good cause be shown for his failure to sign and

return the waiver form. If service is waived, this action will

proceed as if Defendant had been served on the date that the waiver

is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendants will

not be required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days

from the date on which the request for waiver was sent. (This

allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal

service of summons is necessary.) Defendants are asked to read the

statement set forth at the foot of the waiver form that more

completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to

waiver of service of the summons.

5. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court

orders as follows:

a. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, no later

than ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, Defendants shall

file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. 

The motion shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and

shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56. If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the Court prior

to the date the summary judgment motion is due. All papers filed

with the Court shall be promptly served on Plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion shall

be filed with the Court and served on Defendants no later than

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 9

sixty (60) days after the date on which Defendants' motion is

filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice

regarding summary judgment motions should be given to plaintiffs:

The defendants have made a motion for summary 

judgment by which they seek to have your case dismissed. 

A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end

your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to

oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary

judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue

of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute

about any fact that would affect the result of your case,

the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. 

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or

other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what

your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific

facts in declarations, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided

in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the

defendant's declarations and documents and show that

there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If

you do not submit your own evidence in opposition,

summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against

you. If summary judgment is granted in favor of

defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be

no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.

Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment

must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material

fact on every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is

cautioned that because he bears the burden of proving his

allegations in this case, he must be prepared to produce evidence

in support of those allegations when he files his opposition to

Defendants' dispositive motion. Such evidence may include sworn

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 10

declarations from himself and other witnesses to the incident, and

copies of documents authenticated by sworn declaration. Plaintiff

will not be able to avoid summary judgment simply by repeating the

allegations of his complaint.

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall

do so no later than thirty (30) days after the date Plaintiff's

opposition is filed.

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date

the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion

unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

8. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Leave of Court pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)

is hereby granted to Defendants to depose Plaintiff and any other

necessary witnesses confined in prison.

9. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be

served on Defendants, or their counsel once counsel has been

designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants or

their counsel.

10. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. 

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and

must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

11. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable

extensions will be granted. However, the party making a motion for

an extension of time is not relieved from his or her duty to comply

with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 11

for an extension of time. The party making the motion must still

meet the deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing the

motion for an extension of time is issued. Any motion for an

extension of time must be filed no later than fifteen days prior to

the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/26/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WOODSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RIVERA et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-04465 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on December 26, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Thomas Ray Woodson 

P-76095; C Facility 

Calipatria State Prison

Calipatria, CA 92233

Attorney General

State of California

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dated: December 26, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-04465-CW Document 11 Filed 12/26/07 Page 12 of 12