Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01344-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chief Medical Officer of H.D.S.P.
Defendant
Cochran
Defendant
High Desert State Prison I.C.C.
Defendant
Hitchcock
Defendant
James
Defendant
David Medina
Defendant
Mark Anthony Moreno
Plaintiff
E. Simmerson
Defendant
Rita Waterman
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY MORENO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1344 EFB

vs.

DAVID MEDINA, et al.,

ORDER AND FINDINGS

Defendants. AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff

must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his trust

account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward

payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account

exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a claim that defendants Dr. David Medina, Dr. James, Dr. Rita 

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

2

Waterman, the Chief Medical Officer and Officer Hitchcock were deliberately indifferent to

plaintiff’s serious medical needs and that Dr. David Medina retaliated against plaintiff. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A.

For the reasons explained below, the complaint does not state a cognizable claim against

defendants Sergeant E. Simmerson, Captain Patrick Cochran, or the High Desert State Prison

(“HDSP”) ICC.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sergeant E. Simmerson made a formal accusation falsely

stating that plaintiff planned to attack other prisoners and that defendant Captain Patrick Cochran

threatened to arrange for other prisoners to kill plaintiff. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United

States Code creates a cause of action against persons who deprive any individual of a right

secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim for the deprivation of

procedural due process, plaintiff must allege a defendant deprived him of a liberty interest,

which may arise independently under the due process clause or as freedom from state

deprivation or restraint imposing “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to

the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). A

prisoner has no interest in freedom from false disciplinary accusations. Hines v. Gomez, 108

F.3d 265, 268-69 (9th Cir.1997). In order to state a claim that the conditions of imprisonment

violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff must

allege a specific individual was deliberately indifferent to some basic human need such as food,

clothing, shelter, medical care or safety. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991); 

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prison official is deliberately indifferent when

he knows of and disregards a risk of injury or harm that “is not one that today’s society chooses

to tolerate.” See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 837 (1994). Mere threats alone do not violate the Eighth Amendment. Gaut v. Sunn, 810

F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir.1987). Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim under the

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

3

applicable standards.

Turning to the HDSP ICC, plaintiff fails to state a claim. Plaintiff does not explain what

an “ICC” is. Insofar as this term refers to an institutional classification committee, see Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, § 3376(b), plaintiff cannot state a claim against it. As explained above, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 creates a cause of action against persons. A state agency is not a person for purposes of 

§ 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). It follows that neither

can a committee within an agency be a “person.” An institutional classification committee is

simply an entity within a state agency, i.e., the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation. Thus, plaintiff may allege that identified members of a classification committee

violated his right, but he cannot sue any committee as a disembodied entity. This defendant

must be dismissed. 

With respect to plaintiff’s claim against the Chief Medical Officer of HDSP, the court

declines to direct service of process at this time. It is not clear from the complaint whether one

of the named defendants was the Chief Medical Officer at the time of the events giving rise to

this action. If one of the identified defendants held this position, then plaintiff must file an

amended complaint making this clear. If none held this position, then plaintiff may pursue his

claim against the Chief Medical officer only if he identifies this person by name in an amended

complaint. Thus, plaintiff has 45 days to discover the name of this defendant, if necessary, and

to file an amended complaint identifying him.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Dr. David Medina, Dr. James, Dr.

Rita Waterman and Officer Hitchcock or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt

[again] to state a cognizable claim against defendants Sergeant E. Simmerson and Captain

Patrick Cochran. 

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants Sergeant E. Simmerson and Captain Patrick Cochran, he has 30 days so to do. He is

not obligated to amend his complaint.

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

4

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Dr. David Medina, Dr. James,

Dr. Rita Waterman and Officer Hitchcock, against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for

relief, then within 20 days he must return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In

this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all claims against

defendants Sergeant E. Simmerson and Captain Patrick Cochran without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). If plaintiff

contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their

agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff

must not include preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories, griping,

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

5

vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v.

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for

violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998)

(reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in

prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s

pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. A long, rambling pleading including

many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged

constitutional injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely

will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing

plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). The court will construe any

amended pleading liberally to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if

plaintiff violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a first amended complaint plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry

and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may

impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

6

be presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is

further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted

by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation

of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claims against defendants

Dr. David Medina, Dr. James, Dr. Rita Waterman, Officer Hitchcock and the Chief Medical

Officer.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. All payments shall

be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Sergeant E. Simmerson and Captain Patrick Cochran are

dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his

complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged

to amend his complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants Dr. David Medina, Dr. James, Dr. Rita Waterman and Officer Hitchcock . See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank

summons, a copy of the pleading filed June 13, 2008, four USM-285 forms and instructions for

service of process on defendants Dr. David Medina, Dr. James, Dr. Rita Waterman and Officer

Hitchcock. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of

Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and

five copies of the June 13, 2008, complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

7

Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Dr. David Medina, Dr.

James, Dr. Rita Waterman and Officer Hitchcock will be required to respond to plaintiff’s

allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will

construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective

claims against defendants Sergeant E. Simmerson, Captain Patrick Cochran and the Chief

Medical Officer of HDSP without prejudice.

5. Plaintiff must provide the name of the Chief Medical Officer he alleges violated his

rights. Thus, plaintiff has 45 days to discover, if necessary, the name of the Chief Medical

Officer he alleges violated his rights and to file an amended complaint identifying that person. 

Plaintiff’s failure to do this will result in a recommendation that plaintiff’s claim against the

Chief Medical Officer be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case as provided by

the Local Rules of this Court. See L. R. 3-120(e).

Lastly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that claims against the High Desert State Prison

ICC be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff cannot state any claim against it. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner

proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file amended complaint unless the court can

rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a claim). 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

////

////

////

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

8

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 12, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 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

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY MORENO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1344 EFB

vs.

DAVID MEDINA, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 4 completed forms USM-285 

 5 copies of the June 13, 2008 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-01344-JAM-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/12/08 Page 9 of 9