Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05877/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05877-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
W. Hill
Defendant
DeWayne Thompson
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

DEWAYNE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

W. HILL,

Defendant. 

 /

1:04-cv-05877-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS

TO AMEND AS MOOT (Doc.#9, #11,

#13)

Plaintiff, Dewayne Thompson (“Plaintiff”), is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On November 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On December 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-05877-JAT Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. However, in

the objections, Plaintiff states that this action is not about

the prison grievance process, which the Magistrate Judge

addressed in the Findings and Recommendations. Rather,

Plaintiff contends that this action is about prison conditions,

which Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to appeal through

the prison grievance process. 

Plaintiff is informed that this action contains only those

claims clearly alleged in the complaint. A plaintiff’s complaint

must satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a), which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The court does

not attempt to glean from exhibits to complaints potential

claims. If Plaintiff is attempting to file an action concerning

prison conditions, Plaintiff must file a complaint containing

this allegation. 

While the court will not give leave to amend the complaint

to contain a claim regarding the grievance process for the

reasons stated in the Findings and Recommendation, in the

interests of justice, the court will give Plaintiff the

opportunity to file an amended complaint that alleges an Eighth

Amendment violation based on conditions of confinement.

In filing any amended complaint, Plaintiff is advised regarding

the standards for an Eighth Amendment claim. To constitute cruel

Case 1:04-cv-05877-JAT Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 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

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

prison conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary

infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347

(1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh,

prison officials must provide prisoners with food, clothing,

shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id.;

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986);

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Where a

prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of

confinement, prison officials may be held liable only if they

acted with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of

serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.

1998). 

The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective

and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be,

in objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501

U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must “know[]

of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety .

. . .” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Thus, a prison official may be

held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane

conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a

substantial risk of harm and disregards that risk by failing to

take reasonable measures to abate it. Id. at 837-45. “What is

necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and

Unusual Punishment Clause depends upon the claim at issue . . .

.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective

component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and

Case 1:04-cv-05877-JAT Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 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

responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. at 8

(quotations and citations omitted). “[E]xtreme deprivations are

required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment] conditions-ofconfinement claim.” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect

to this type of claim, “[b]ecause routine discomfort is part of

the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses

against society, only those deprivations denying the minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to

form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id.

(quotations and citations omitted).

The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and finds that

Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which

relief may be granted under section 1983. However, the court

will provide Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended

complaint that alleges an Eighth Amendment conditions of

confinement claim. 

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint

how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation

of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific

terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative

link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v.

Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Finally, plaintiff is advised

that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading or

Case 1:04-cv-05877-JAT Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 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

exhibit. 

Accordingly, based on the Findings and Recommendations and

the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 14,

2005, are ADOPTED IN PART; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to file

an amended complaint containing an Eighth Amendment

conditions of confinement claim only;

3. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a

civil rights complaint form;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint;

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in

compliance with this order, this action will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; and

6. All pending motions to amend the petition are DENIED as

moot in light of this order.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05877-JAT Document 17 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 5