Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01187-9/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

KEVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. BENTACOURT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01187-NONE-GSA (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDER 

DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. Nos. 28, 35)

Plaintiff Kevin Allen, a state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison for 

alleged violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (Doc. Nos. 1; 13 at 1–2, 4.) Plaintiff claims 

that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his exposure to the raw sewage in his cell for 

seven days when his toilet was broken.1 (Doc. No. 13 at 6–16.) After screening plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court dismissed plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment claims for failure to state sufficient facts but granted him leave to amend to attempt 

to cure the deficiencies noted. (Doc. Nos. 15, 20, 28.) Rather than filing a second amended 

complaint, however, plaintiff instead moved for reconsideration and for appointment of counsel, 

 

1

 The Ninth Circuit has held that “a prisoner to lack of sanitation that is severe or prolonged” 

may constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Anderson v. Cty. of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 

1314–15 (9th Cir.).

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 37 Filed 11/25/20 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

and to appeal the court’s screening order—though, the first two of which were denied by this 

court and the latter by the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. Nos. 22, 26, 29, 31, 33–34.) The magistrate judge

subsequently recommended dismissal of this action due to plaintiff’s failure to obey the court’s 

order by failing to file a second amended complaint within the specified time. (Doc. No. 35.) 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 

36.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the 

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 

file, including plaintiff’s objections, the court finds the pending findings and recommendations to 

be supported by the record and proper analysis.

2

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 21, 2020 (Doc. No. 35) are 

ADOPTED in full;

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted under § 1983 and his failure to obey the court’s

order; and

/////

/////

/////

/////

 

2

 In his objections, plaintiff cites to a previous case in which the undersigned found that plaintiff 

had alleged sufficient facts to establish deliberate indifference because of prison officials’ failure 

to promptly repair his toilet and, as a result, exposed him to human waste. (Doc. No. 16 at 2–4, 

Allen v. Meyer, et al., 1:09-cv-00729-DAD-SKO.) The court finds that the facts alleged in the 

Allen case and those alleged by plaintiff here are distinguishable. Whereas the facts alleged by 

the plaintiff in Allen, if proven, would have shown that the prison officials took no action, the 

facts alleged here reflect that defendants submitted a work order to repair plaintiff’s broken toilet, 

made follow-up calls to ensure that the work order would be fulfilled, and provided plaintiff with 

a mop to clean his toilet and cell while the work order was being processed (Doc. Nos. 13 at 6–

16; 15 at 2–5, 7–9). In light of the facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, the magistrate judge’s 

conclusion that plaintiff must allege additional facts to sufficiently assert that defendants’ acted or 

failed to act with a “culpable state of mind” was well-founded. (Doc. No. 15 at 8–9.)

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 37 Filed 11/25/20 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

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 

of closing the case and then to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01187-JLT-GSA Document 37 Filed 11/25/20 Page 3 of 3