Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01669-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kyree Breedlove
Plaintiff
V. Figueroa
Defendant
V. Flores
Defendant
S. Savoie
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYREE BREEDLOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. FIGUEROA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01669-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF 

WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ON 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kyree Breedlove (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on December 10, 2018, is 

currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) 

I. 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).

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

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/15/19 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

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 Atlantic 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.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, where the 

events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) 

Officer V. Figueroa; (2) Officer S. Savoie; and (3) Officer V. Flores.

Plaintiff asserts excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and alleges as 

follows:

On 9/6/18 at or around 8:10 AM C/O Figueroa and C/O S. Savoie asked me to step 

out my cell so they can search I complied an went to lower “C” section shower and 

locked myself in around 5 mins later C/O V. Figueroa told C/O Flores to open the 

shower I walked back to my cell and C/O Flores locked me in my cell before the 

officers left I remembered to ask for a cell search [receipt] at witch [sic] time C/O 

Figueroa told me to “Shut the fuck up” I said what man call the [sergeant]” at that 

time he grabbed his can of []pepper spray and motioned for C/O Flores to reopen 

my cell door when my cell door opened C/O Figueroa sprayed his can of O/C MK9 

pepper spray directly in my eye I turned around and put my hands in the air and 

walked to the back of the cell and assumed a prone [position] the officer then 

walked in the cell and sprayed the rest of his can to the back of my head and ears 

He put me in cuffs and dragged me out the cell by my [ankles through] a puddle of 

O.C. MK9 peeper spray I thought I was gunna [sic] die

(ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff claims that he had an ear infection due to the spray and had to get glasses 

for damage to his vision caused by the pepper spray. (Id.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary 

damages. 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/15/19 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

III. Discussion

A. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, 

any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution ... shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between 

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978); Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed. 2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] 

person ‘subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 

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).

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to adequately link Defendants Flores and Savoie to any 

violation of his rights. Although Plaintiff mentions these defendants in his allegations, he does not 

adequately link them to any act or omission that resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights. 

If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must allege what each of these defendants did or did 

not do that resulted in a constitutional violation. 

B. 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).

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/15/19 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

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)).

At the pleading stage, the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint states a cognizable claim for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Figueroa. However, 

Plaintiff does not state a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Savoie or Flores. 

Plaintiff’s complaint lacks any factual allegations to suggest that they were involved in any use of 

force. 

Insofar as Plaintiff is attempting to assert that Defendants Flores and Savoie failed to 

intervene in the use of excessive force, his complaint also fails to state a cognizable claim. Prison 

officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 832–33; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). “[A] prison official can 

violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to intervene.” Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 

1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995). As currently pled, however, Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate 

that either Defendant Flores or Defendant Savoie were in a position to intervene in the use of 

excessive force by Defendant Figueroa. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

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

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Figueroa. However, 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any other cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff will be granted 

leave to amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies to the extent he is able to do so in 

good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

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

only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court, he may file a notice informing the Court that 

he does not intend to amend, and he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable claim. The Court 

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/15/19 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

will then recommend that the remaining claims and defendants be dismissed from this action, and 

then initiate the process for service of the complaint. 

If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, any such amended complaint should be 

brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation 

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although 

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

speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local 

Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a 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 in this order; or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a first amended complaint 

and he is willing to proceed only on his claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment against Defendant Figueroa; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend dismissal of 

this action, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01669-JLT-BAM Document 9 Filed 05/15/19 Page 5 of 5