Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kyle Steven Martin
Plaintiff
North Kern State Prison
Defendant
Sandra Pennywell
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE STEVEN MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA PENNYWELL,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01281-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 5)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN

THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 25, 2013, Plaintiff Kyle Steven Martin, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 5.) His Complaint is

now before the Court for screening.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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.

1

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 9
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

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or 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). 

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Wilder v.

Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983

is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating

federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The Complaint names Sandra Pennywell, Warden, North Kern State Prison (NKSP)

as the sole Defendant in this action. Plaintiff alleges that he was housed for more than

three months in an area where Valley Fever was known to be prevalent. Plaintiff is an

older African American and therefore more susceptible to Valley Fever. (Compl. at 5.) He

contracted the disease and endured pain and suffering as a result. (Id. at 6.)

A. Section 1983

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

2

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 2 of 9
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

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243,

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set

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

face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant

committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

Plaintiff alleges that as an older African American he is particularly susceptible to

Valley Fever but was nevertheless held for more than three months in an area where the

disease was prevalent. The Complaint provides very little context; it does not make clear

where Plaintiff was confined or how the Defendant might be said to be responsible for his

confinement there. The factual allegations do not satisfy the basic elements of a

cognizable claim. The Complaint does not demonstrate that a Defendant personally

participated in the violation of Plaintiff’s rights and fails to establish that a Defendant acted

with deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. The following sections of this order will

provide the legal standards applicable to Plaintiff’s claim and a brief explanation of the

Complaint’s deficiencies.

3

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 3 of 9
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

B. Linkage Requirement

Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.

2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962,

969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this

plausibility standard. Id.

The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

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

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Government officials may

not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat

superior. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. Since a government official cannot be held liable under

a theory of vicarious liability in § 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts showing

that the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at

1948. In other words, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, Plaintiff must link each

named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

Plaintiff's federal rights.

Warden Pennywell is not mentioned in the Complaint’s factual summary. In order

to state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as to each individual

defendant's” deprivation of protected rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th

Cir.1988). The mere fact that the Warden may have supervised the individuals responsible

for a violation is not enough. Defendants may only be held liable in a supervisory capacity

if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act

4

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 4 of 9
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

to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant Pennywell participated in the violations

alleged and thus, as pled, can not state a cognizable claim against her. In order to state

a cognizable claim, Plaintiff needs to set forth sufficient facts showing that the Defendant

personally took some action that violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

C. Eighth Amendment

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). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of

confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of

life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). In order to

state a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must allege facts

sufficient to support a claim that prison officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk

of serious harm to the plaintiff. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).

A prisoner "may state a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment by alleging

that [prison officials] have, with deliberate indifference, exposed him to [environmental

conditions] that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health." Helling

v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993).

The Courts of this district have repeatedly found that confinement in a location

5

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 5 of 9
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

where Valley Fever is prevalent, in and of itself, fails to satisfy the first element of an 1

Eighth Amendment claim, i.e. that the condition poses an excessive risk of harm. See, e.g.

Smith v. Yates, 2012 WL 1498891, *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) (citing King v. Avenal State

Prison, 2009 WL 546212, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009) ("[T]o the extent that Plaintiff is

attempting to pursue an Eighth Amendment claim for the mere fact that he was confined

in a location where Valley Fever spores existed which caused him to contract Valley Fever,

he is advised that no courts have held that exposure to Valley Fever spores presents an

excessive risk to inmate health."); see also Gilbert v. Yates, 2010 WL 5113116, *3 (E.D.

Cal. Dec. 9, 2010); Willis v. Yates, 2009 WL 3486674, *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2009).

Thus, Plaintiff cannot state an Eighth Amendment claim based solely upon mere

exposure to, or contraction of, Valley Fever. There are circumstances however where

exposure to Valley Fever could conceivably give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim.

Smith v. Schwarzenegger, 393 F. App'x. 518 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Helling, the Court held

that it was not inconceivable that the Plaintiff could allege a cognizable claim based on

Valley Fever exposure).

Courts have deemed the first prong of an Eighth Amendment claim satisfied where

the plaintiff has identified a factor responsible for either increasing the risk of contraction

or the severity of infection. See, e.g., Stevens v. Yates, 2012 WL 2520464, *3 (E.D. Cal.

June 28, 2012) (nearby construction disturbed soil); Owens v. Trimble, 2012 WL 1910102,

*2 (E.D. Cal. May 25, 2012) (asthma); Whitney v. Walker, 2012 WL 893783, *2-4 (E.D. Cal.

Valley Fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis, is "'an infectious disease caused by inhalation

1

of a fungus (Coccidioides) that lives in the soil of dry, low rainfall areas. It is spread through spores that

become airborne when the dirt they reside in is disturbed by digging, construction, or strong winds. There

is no direct person-to-person transmission of infection.'" Plata v. Brown, 2013 W L 3200587, *2 (N.D. Cal.

June 24, 2013).

6

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 6 of 9
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

Mar. 15, 2012) (immune system compromised by cancer); Thurston v. Schwarzenegger,

2008 WL 2129767, *2 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2008) (various medical conditions, including

asthma, and race); see also Plata v. Brown, 2013 WL 3200587, *7 n. 10, *14 (N.D. Cal.

June 24, 2013) (finding that the following groups are at an increased risk of harm from

Valley Fever infection and should therefore be excluded from Pleasant Valley State Prison

and Avenal State Prison: inmates designated as medically high-risk; "'[p]atients with

impaired cellular immunity, such as those with solid organ transplants, those with HIV

infection, and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal failure,

congestive heart failure, diabetes; patients receiving TNF inhibitors (medications used in

the treatment of arthritis); Filipino and African-American men; and pregnant women in the

2nd or 3rd trimester.'").

Plaintiff alleges that he was more susceptible to Valley Fever during his confinement

because he is African American. Race can be a factor responsible for increasing the

severity of Valley Fever. See Thurston, 2008 WL at *2; Plata, 2013 at *7 n. 10. However,

to state an Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that a Defendant

exhibited deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. 

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060

(9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

exists,’ but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511

U.S. at 837). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the

official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id.

(quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

7

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 7 of 9
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

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim for relief under section 1983. The Court

will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the

alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-

49. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible

on its face.’” Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also

demonstrate that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his

rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on curing

the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55,

57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,”

refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.

Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although accepted as

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

8

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 8 of 9
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

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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form

and (2) a copy of his Complaint, filed July 25, 2013;

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim and failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/30/13 Page 9 of 9