Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00487-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Bell
Defendant
D. Giardino
Defendant
Jeff Lynch
Defendant
M. Sotelo
Defendant
Daniel Joseph Young
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

DANIEL JOSEPH YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al..

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-0487 DB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set

forth below, this court finds plaintiff has stated some claims, and gives plaintiff an opportunity to 

either file an amended complaint or proceed on the cognizable claims in her first amended 

complaint. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento. She complains of conduct 

that occurred there in 2019. On screening plaintiff’s original complaint, this court found: (1)

plaintiff stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Correctional 

Officers M. Sotelo, D. Giardino, and R. Bell; (2) plaintiff stated a cognizable claim that defendant 

Giardino was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment; and (3) plaintiff failed to state claims against defendants Warden Lynch or 

Case 2:22-cv-00487-KJM-DB Document 10 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 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

2

Correctional Sergeant Doe. This court permitted plaintiff to choose to proceed on her cognizable 

claims or file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff chose to file a first amended complaint. 

SCREENING

As described in this court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen complaints 

brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim 

in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In 

addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the 

deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “A person 

‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 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).

In the first amended complaint, plaintiff again adequately alleges claims against Correctional 

Officers M. Sotelo, D. Giardino, and R. Bell for excessive force and against Giardino for 

deliberate indifference to her medical needs. Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on these 

Eighth Amendment claims. 

With respect to defendant Doe, plaintiff alleges Doe witnessed the excessive force incident 

but failed to follow protocol by documenting the excessive force. This failure permitted the other 

defendants to file false reports regarding the incident, resulting in an extension of plaintiff’s time 

in segregation. These allegations do not state a claim under § 1983. Plaintiff has no

constitutional right to have an officer follow prison protocols or report the conduct of other 

officers. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir.2009) (alleged failure to follow 

prison policy does not establish federal constitutional violation). Further, to the extent plaintiff 

alleges Doe intentionally aided in the filing of false reports, as plaintiff was informed in this 

court’s prior screening order, the falsification of a disciplinary report does not state a stand-alone 

constitutional claim. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (no right to be 

free of false charges); Luster v. Amezcua, No. 1:16-cv-0554-DAD-GSA-PC, 2017 WL 772141, at 

Case 2:22-cv-00487-KJM-DB Document 10 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 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

3

*5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017). Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Doe will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff next alleges she told defendants Sotelo, Giardino, and Bell she intended to file 

grievances against them for excessive force. In retaliation, they conspired to provide false 

information, and did provide false information, for a disciplinary action against plaintiff. These 

allegations are sufficient to state a claim that defendants Sotelo, Giardino, and Bell retaliated 

against plaintiff in violation of her First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 

559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted); see also Nyland v. Calaveras Cty. Sheriff’s Jail, 

688 F. App’x 483, 485 (9th Cir. 2017). 

Finally, plaintiff contends defendant Lynch denied plaintiff’s grievances regarding the 

actions of the other defendants. As a result, those other defendants were not disciplined and 

plaintiff was prejudiced in “seeking justice against them.” Plaintiff fails to state claims against 

Lynch under § 1983 for several reasons. First, prison officials are not required under federal law 

to process inmate grievances in a specific way or to respond to them in a favorable manner. It is 

well established that “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison 

grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. 

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Second, plaintiff fails to show he has a constitutional 

right to have an officer disciplined, and this court is aware of no such right. Third, plaintiff fails 

to show Lynch intentionally prevented her from “seeking justice” and that she has, in fact, been 

denied the right to pursue claims against the other defendants. 

CONCLUSION

This court finds above that plaintiff has stated the following cognizable claims: (1) Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell; (2) an Eighth 

Amendment medical claim against defendant Giardino; and (3) First Amendment retaliation 

claims against Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell. This court further finds that plaintiff has failed to state

any other claims.

Plaintiff has a choice. She may proceed on her Eighth and First Amendment claims against 

Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell or she may amend the first amended complaint to attempt to also state 

other claims. Plaintiff is advised, however, that his court finds it very unlikely she will be able to 

Case 2:22-cv-00487-KJM-DB Document 10 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 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

4

state claims against defendants Doe or Lynch. On the facts plaintiff has presented, this court is 

unable to discern any potential constitutional claims against either defendant. That said, this 

court will give plaintiff one final opportunity to attempt to state claims against those defendants, 

if she wishes. 

In the prior screening order, this court set out the standards for filing an amended complaint. 

They will not be restated here. Plaintiff is reminded that in any amended complaint she must 

include all claims she wishes to proceed on in this action and must allege facts showing just how 

each defendant violated her constitutional rights. 

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff has stated Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Giardino, Sotelo, 

and Bell for excessive force; an Eighth Amendment medical claim against Giardino; and First

Amendment retaliation claims against Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Lynch and Doe are dismissed with leave to amend. 

3. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on her cognizable claims set out above or she may 

choose to amend her first amended complaint. 

4. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 

attached form indicating how she would like to proceed. 

5. Plaintiff is warned that her failure to comply with this order may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: July 6, 2022

DLB:9/DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/youn0487.FAC scrn lta or proceed

Case 2:22-cv-00487-KJM-DB Document 10 Filed 07/06/22 Page 4 of 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

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JOSEPH YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-0487 DB P

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on her Eight Amendment excessive force claims

against defendants Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell, her Eighth Amendment medical claim 

against defendant Giardino, and her First Amendment retaliation claims against 

defendants Giardino, Sotelo, and Bell. Plaintiff understands that by going forward 

without amending the complaint she is voluntarily dismissing all other claims.

____ Plaintiff wants to amend the first amended complaint.

DATED:______________________

____________________________________

Plaintiff Daniel Joseph Young, Pro Se

Case 2:22-cv-00487-KJM-DB Document 10 Filed 07/06/22 Page 5 of 5