Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01048/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01048-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Bryant
Defendant
Gonzales
Defendant
Guzman
Defendant
Edwin Martinez
Plaintiff
Rouston
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01048-OWW-DLB (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF EITHER

TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO

BE COGNIZABLE

(Doc. 1)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Edwin Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 5, 2009, in the

Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. The action was transferred to the

Fresno Division on June 15, 2009.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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

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

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action

or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 8
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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its

face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations

are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

I. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi,

California, where the events giving rise to this action allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as

Defendants correctional officers Rodriguez and Guzman, sergeant T. Valdez, captain M. Bryant,

and assistant Warden Rouston. Plaintiff also names warden Gonzales in the caption of his

complaint.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff has a broken leg and suffers from herniation of

his lumbar spine. (Compl. 5.) Plaintiff endures chronic back pain and severe limitation to his

physical activities. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that defendants denied him adequate medical care

and living conditions, engaged in racial discrimination, false CDC 115 write-ups, and deprived

and destroyed his property. (Id.)

On May 1, 2008, at 11:30 PM, while Plaintiff stood by his bunk, Defendants Rodriguez

and Guzman approached Plaintiff and called him a “wetback.” (Id. at 5A.) Plaintiff responded

by saying he is not a wetback, and was born in the United States. Both officers arose in anger

and asked Plaintiff what was his problem. (Id.) Defendant Guzman grabbed Plaintiff’s right

arm, twisting it and dropping Plaintiff to the floor while Defendant Rodriguez started spraying

Plaintiff with pepper spray. (Id. at 5A-5B.) Plaintiff called out for help as Defendant Rodriguez

continued to pepper-spray him. (Id. at 5B.) When Plaintiff tried to turn his head, Defendant

Guzman slammed the right side of Plaintiff’s head to the floor. (Id.) Defendant Rodriguez

grabbed Plaintiff’s arm, rolled him on his side, and began beating Plaintiff with his baton in the

2

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 8
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

face and chest area. (Id.)

Plaintiff was handcuffed and left lying on the floor for a long period of time. (Id.) 

Plaintiff kept calling for medical attention, but was not provided any medical treatment. (Id.)

Defendant Rodriguez kicked Plaintiff several times while Guzman grabbed Plaintiff’s collar

shirt. (Id.) Plaintiff’s body was swollen. (Id.) Plaintiff was then locked in a single man cage by

the program office. (Id.) Plaintiff kept asking for medical treatment, but was ignored for over

three hours. (Id. at 5B-5C.) C/O Amos came by and stated that if Plaintiff filed a claim, he

would fuck him up. (Id.) A nurse came to assist Plaintiff, but C/O Amos told her that Plaintiff is

fine and not to make any reports. (Id.) Plaintiff was moved from the cage to dorm No. 2 at

approximately 3 AM. (Id.)

On May 2, 2008, at 6 AM, Plaintiff spoke to C/O Howze that he needed medical

attention. (Id.) Howze called the medical clinic and two officers arrived and took Plaintiff and

locked him in the cage again. (Id.) The officers strip searched Plaintiff and left him there for

approximately 3 hours. (Id.) The officers refused to call medical staff, and instead threatened

Plaintiff with administrative segregation (“ad seg”) if he filed an inmate appeal relating to this

incident. (Id. at 5D.) Plaintiff kept his silence and was returned to dorm No. 2. (Id.)

On May 3, 2008, Plaintiff approached another officer who saw his injuries and took

Plaintiff to the cage, locked him, and called the sergeant. (Id.) A little while later, a lieutenant

came, who called the captain and Defendant Rouston. (Id.) They asked Plaintiff what happened,

and Plaintiff told them the truth. (Id.) They made a videotape and a written statement, and asked

if Plaintiff had any witnesses, to which Plaintiff said that the inmates in dorm No. 1would testify. 

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that the assistant warden, captain and lieutenant tried to hide evidence

and favored the correctional officers. (Id. at 5H.) Plaintiff alleges that his disciplinary hearing

was improperly conducted. (Id. at 5I.) Plaintiff alleges that he asked for evidence of any threat

or security to the institution, and Defendants were unable to produce any. (Id.)

Plaintiff also alleges that prison officials knew he had a broken knee and Plaintiff was not

provided a mobility impaired vest. (Id. at 5K.) Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against

3

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 8
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

on the basis of his disability. (Id. at 5N.)

On July 15, 2008, Plaintiff was placed in ad seg as a threat to defendant Guzman’s safety. 

(Id. at 5O). Plaintiff’s property was rolled by another officer, who failed to give a copy of

property inventory list to Plaintiff. (Id.) Upon his release from ad seg, Plaintiff filed CDC-602

appeal for his property, which no one responded to. (Id.) Plaintiff never received his property. 

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied his due process rights during the disciplinary hearing. 

(Id. at 5P.) Plaintiff alleges that no evidence was collected or produced, nor were any witnesses

called. (Id.) Plaintiff was found guilty of the disciplinary charge. (Id. at 5T.)

Plaintiff alleges violation of the Eighth Amendment, violation of the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment, discrimination because of his disability, and violation of

California Penal Code 673 and 265.2. Plaintiff requests as relief money damages, and injunctive

relief.

II. Analysis

A. Eighth Amendment

1. Excessive Force

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson

v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim

is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always

violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is

evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth

Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis

injuries)). However, not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause

of action.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical

force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id.

4

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 4 of 8
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

at 9-10 (internal quotations marks and citations omitted). 

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation

of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to

cause harm.” Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it

may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that

need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,

and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth

Amendment inquiry, but does not end it.” Id. 

Plaintiff alleges cognizable claims against Defendants Rodriguez and Guzman for

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

2. Living Conditions/Medical Treatment

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). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison

officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Id. at 833;

Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect

inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation

where prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. 

E.g., Farmer at 847; Hearns at 1040.

Plaintiff alleges cognizable claims against Defendants Rodriguez and Guzman for

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Plaintiff does not allege any other cognizable

Eighth Amendment claims against any other defendants.

B. Due Process - Disciplinary Hearings

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty without due

5

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 5 of 8
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

process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of

action for deprivation of due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty

interest for which the protection is sought. “States may under certain circumstances create liberty

interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-

84 (1995). Liberty interests created by state law are generally limited to freedom from restraint

which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484.

“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full

panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 556 (1974). With respect to prison disciplinary proceedings, the minimum procedural

requirements that must be met are: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at least 24 hours

between the time the prisoner receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so that the

prisoner may prepare his defense; (3) a written statement by the fact finders of the evidence they

rely on and reasons for taking disciplinary action; (4) the right of the prisoner to call witnesses

and present documentary evidence in his defense, when permitting him to do so would not be

unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; and (5) legal assistance to the

prisoner where the prisoner is illiterate or the issues presented are legally complex. Id. at 563-71. 

As long as the five minimum Wolff requirements are met, due process has been satisfied. 

Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable claim for violation of due process. Plaintiff 

fails to allege a deprivation of a liberty interest. Plaintiff also fails to link any defendants to the

alleged constitutional violation. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that

(1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights

secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185

(9th Cir. 2006).

C. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff names a lieutenant, sergeant, captain, assistant warden, and warden as

Defendants. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of

6

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 6 of 8
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

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To

state a claim for relief under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, plaintiff

must allege some facts that would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally

participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed

to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy

‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional

violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted);

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that

indicate the supervisory defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s general

allegations against Defendants are insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

at 1949.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against defendants Guzman and Rodriguez for

excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff fails

to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants. The Court grants Plaintiff

leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days.

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding

only against defendants Guzman and Rodriguez, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing. 

The Court will then issue a Findings and Recommendations dismissing defendants Gonzales, T.

Valdaz, M. Bryant, and Rouston from this action, and will forward Plaintiff two summonses and

two USM-285 forms for completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct

the United States Marshal to initiate service of process.

If Plaintiff opts to amend, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s

7

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 7 of 8
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

constitutional or other federal rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although

accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citations

omitted). 

 Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must

either:

a. File a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the

Court in this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only on the claims identified by the Court

as viable/cognizable in this order; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action for

failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 13, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 1:09-cv-01048-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/15/10 Page 8 of 8