Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00662-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Gomez
Defendant
Ivan Goodlow
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN GOODLOW,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00662-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS

(ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Ivan Goodlow (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On June 13, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated

a cognizable claim against Defendant A. Gomez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 5.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed 

only on the cognizable claims identified by the Court. (Id.) On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff notified 

the Court that he did not wish to file a first amended complaint and was willing to proceed only

on the cognizable claim against Defendant A. Gomez identified by the Court. (ECF No. 6.)

Case 1:23-cv-00662-BAM Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 6
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

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

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

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 

or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 

true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 

572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 

is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

A. Allegations in Complaint

Plaintiff is currently housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, in San Diego, 

California. Plaintiff alleges the events in the complaint occurred while he was housed at 

California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. Plaintiff names A. Gomez, B-yard 

Correctional Officer, as the sole defendant. Plaintiff alleges as follows:

On Sept. 14 or 15 of 2022, I was going to thru depression an [sic] anxiety, an [sic] 

felt suicidal, so on Sept. 14 or 15, 2022 I told (A. Gomez) I felt suicidal, he ignored 

me about an hour. I expressed to him that the prison I felt was discriminatory 

towards me. He then pulled me out of the cell in B-yard about an hour or two 

hours later in handcuffs to [unintelligible] me in the corridor or hallway or 

something like, then grabbed me by the throat choking me hard with severe 

Case 1:23-cv-00662-BAM Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 6
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

pressure for 5 seconds, saying “I could do more, but I am not,” he said. I was out 

of breath. Then I was taken out of the building to the suicide part, where I 

screamed calling A. Gomez a racist. So they put me in a holding cell for about an 

hour, then B. Anderson put me on camera for excessive force, and put the 

(camcorder) on picture angleing [sic] on my neck (and then I end up going suicidal 

the same day where I was [unintelligent] suicide watch for about a day, then they 

transferred me out on suicidal to (North Kern) to remain on suicidal because of my 

psychiatric issue.

(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff says he was physically and emotionally harmed, and it was traumatizing.

B. Discussion

1. Eighth Amendment – Excessive Force

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). The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) 

(citations omitted). 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) (quotations omitted).

For claims of excessive physical force, the issue is “whether force was applied in a goodfaith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 

Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Relevant factors for this consideration include “the extent of injury . . . [,] 

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. (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 1078, 1085 (1986)). 

Although de minimis uses of force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use 

of force to cause harm always violates the Eighth Amendment, regardless of whether or not 

significant injury is evident. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9–10; Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th 

Cir. 2002).

At the pleading stage, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant A. Gomez for 

choking Plaintiff.

Case 1:23-cv-00662-BAM Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 3 of 6
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

2. Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause requires the State to treat all similarly situated people 

equally. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). This does not 

mean, however, that all prisoners must receive identical treatment and resources. See Cruz v. 

Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n.2 (1972); Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 1993); Allen v. 

Toombs, 827 F.2d 563, 568–69 (9th Cir. 1987).

“To prevail on an Equal Protection claim brought under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege facts 

plausibly showing that ‘ “the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against 

[them] based upon membership in a protected class,’ ” (citing Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 

F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005)) (quoting Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001)), 

or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational 

relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601–02 

(2008); Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 

546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th 

Cir. 2008).

To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to allege an equal protection claim for “racist” conduct, 

Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable equal protection claim. Plaintiff does not allege that he was 

discriminated against because of his membership in any protected class. He also does not allege 

factual support that he was intentionally treated differently than other similarly situated inmates 

without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Plaintiff has not provided any factual 

support for this claim. Fletcher v. Clendenin, No. 1:22-CV-00249 AWI BAM, 2022 WL 

2791480, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) (Equal Protection claim dismissed for failure to allege 

factual support for denial of treatment based on membership in a protected class).

3. Verbal Harassment

To the extent Plaintiff claims a violation of rights due to A. Gomez’s threats, Plaintiff fails 

to state a cognizable claim for threats. Allegations of name-calling, verbal abuse, or threats 

generally fail to state a constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel 

and unusual punishment. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[V]erbal 

Case 1:23-cv-00662-BAM Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 4 of 6
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

harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment.”), opinion amended on denial of 

reh’g, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(holding that a prisoner’s allegations of threats allegedly made by guards failed to state a cause of 

action). Even in cases concerning “abusive language directed at [a plaintiff’s] religious and 

ethnic background, ‘verbal harassment or abuse is not sufficient to state a constitutional 

deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.’ ” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(quoting Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987)) (alterations omitted), 

abrogated on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008). However, verbal 

harassment may violate the constitution when it is “unusually gross even for a prison setting and 

[is] calculated to and [does] cause [plaintiff] psychological damage.” Cox v. Kernan, 2019 WL 

6840136, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting Keenan, 83 F.3d 1083 

at 1092).

4. Housing

In general, prison officials’ housing and classification decisions do not give rise to federal 

constitutional claims encompassed by the protection of liberty and property guaranteed by the 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) (It is well 

settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, to any 

particular security classification, or to any particular housing assignment.); accord King v. Lemos, 

No. 1:20-CV-01837-NONE-BAM (PC), 2021 WL 2038187, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2021); 

Sanford v. Eaton, No. 1:20-CV-00792 JLT BAM PC, 2022 WL 1308193, at *9 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 

2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-00792 JLT BAM PC, 2022 WL 

2181782 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2022) (no right to stop transfer).

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim

against Defendant A. Gomez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

However, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any other cognizable claims.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 

District Judge to this action.

Case 1:23-cv-00662-BAM Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 5 of 6
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

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 1, 2023, (ECF No. 1), against 

Defendant A. Gomez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

2. All other claims be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief 

may be granted.

* * *

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00662-BAM Document 8 Filed 06/23/23 Page 6 of 6