Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01824/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01824-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus W. Best
Plaintiff
Theresa Schwartz
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS W. BEST,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1824 FCD DAD P

vs.

THERESA SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $7.03 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/06 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

2

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s

account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/06 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

 Plaintiff’s amended complaint was filed on September 26, 2005. 1

 This court has implemented the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) 2

docketing and file system which allows pleadings and documents to be electronically filed by the

parties. For pleadings or documents that are submitted in paper format, the filing is scanned and

stored electronically into the court’s CM/ECF system. Each page of the electronic filing is

numbered chronologically, whether or not, it was numbered by the party. If the filing is lengthy,

the document is divided into parts. When the undersigned refers to a page number for a pleading

or document filed with this court, the court is using the CM/ECF page number, which may not

coincide with the page number used by the parties.

3

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that from June 17, 2005 to June 22, 1

2005, he was housed in an administrative segregation cell and that the conditions in that cell

caused him to experience nausea, vomiting, burning eyes and to cough up blood. (Compl. at 5 .) 2

Plaintiff contends that he notified the housing officer that due to the toxic condition he would not

return to the cell but was told that if he refused he would be physically returned. (Id.) According

to plaintiff’s allegations, another prisoner told him that a previous occupant had started a fire in

the cell in question and that staff had not properly cleaned it. (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that

despite requests, he did not receive medical attention for the symptoms suffered as a result of the

conditions in the cell. (Id.) Plaintiff names the warden at California Medical Facility and Does

1-4 as defendants. 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must

give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some

degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. 

In addition, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 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). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the

involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/06 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

4

of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). In his complaint, plaintiff does not set forth any

allegations concerning the actions taken by defendant Warden Schwartz resulting in the alleged

violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. In addition, plaintiff’s allegations regarding the

conditions of his confinement and inadequate medical care lack sufficient specificity. Therefore,

the court will dismiss the amended complaint and grant leave to file a second amended

complaint. 

 The following legal standards apply to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims

relating to housing conditions and lack of medical care. Prison officials have a duty to provide

humane conditions of confinement; officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food,

clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of

inmates. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984). However, only “unnecessary and

wanton infliction of pain” constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth

Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651,

670 (1977); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). “It is obduracy and wantonness, not

inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and

Unusual Punishments Clause.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319. “[A] prison official violates the

Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

832 (1994). “First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious.’” Id.

(quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, a prison official must have had a

sufficiently culpable state of mind; he must have acted with deliberate indifference. This is “a

state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” and “requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due

care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.” Id. at 835 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319). 

Plaintiff must set forth factual allegations satisfying both requirements of an

Eighth Amendment claim challenging the conditions of his housing assignment. In this regard,

plaintiff must provide additional factual allegations that would demonstrate that each named

defendant was aware of the unsafe or unhealthy conditions in his cell and as well as the

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/06 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

5

symptoms suffered by plaintiff as a result of those conditions but failed to take any action. Any

documentation reflecting plaintiff’s physical reaction to the conditions in his cell and/or

information about the substance(s) to which plaintiff was exposed, may be attached to plaintiff’s

second amended complaint. 

As to plaintiff’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care, plaintiff must 

provide allegations addressing the two elements of an Eighth Amendment claim: “the

seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that

need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). A medical need is serious “if

the failure to treat the prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury of the

‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Id. at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). 

Indications of a serious medical need include “the presence of a medical condition that

significantly affects an individual’s daily activities.” Id. at 1059-60. In demonstrating the

existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the objective requirement for proving an

Eighth Amendment violation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Plaintiff must

also provide allegations that would demonstrate that the named defendants responded to his

serious medical need with deliberate indifference. Id. Again, plaintiff may attach copies of

medical records or grievances that were submitted in alleging facts which support this claim. 

Lastly, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order

to make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the

prior pleadings no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in the second amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/06 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

6

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $7.03. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s September 12, 2005 complaint and September 26, 2005 amended

complaint are dismissed. 

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint

must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended

Complaint”; plaintiff must use the form complaint provided by the Clerk of the Court and answer

each question on the form; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the second amended

complaint; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court’s form

complaint for a § 1983 action.

DATED: October 3, 2006.

DAD:4

best1824.14

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 6 Filed 10/04/06 Page 6 of 6