Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02038/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02038-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DaVeiga
Defendant
Kranrod
Defendant
Devon Dion Mannings
Plaintiff
Palermo
Defendant
Smith
Defendant
Tyler
Defendant
Vasquez
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVON DION MANNINGS, ) 1:12-cv-02038 GSA PC

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

 ) FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

 v. ) NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGESS TO

 ) PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS 

 ) FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE 

C/O PALERMO, et al., )

 ) RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 

 Defendants. )

 )

 

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

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). “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 

 

1 Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on March 1, 2013. (ECF No. 9.)

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 6
2

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

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

A. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at California State Prison Lancaster. Plaintiff brings this action against 

defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at North Kern State Prison (NKSP). 

The events at issue in this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was housed at NKSP. Plaintiff names 

the following individual defendants: Correctional Officer (C/O) Palermo; C/O Tyler; Lieutenant 

Smith; Nurse Kranrod; Captain Daveiga.

Plaintiff alleges that on March 13, 2012, he was escorted from his housing unit by 

Defendant Palermo. Plaintiff asked Palermo why he was being moved. Palermo informed 

Plaintiff that he was being moved to a “lock-down building.” Plaintiff again asked why he was 

being escorted from his cell. Palermo “refused to respond further.” Plaintiff asked Palermo to 

speak to his superior. Palermo responded by directing Plaintiff to get down into a prone position. 

Plaintiff complied and was handcuffed. 

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Palermo called for assistance. Defendant Tyler responded. Tyler and Palermo “then 

snatched plaintiff roughly, pulling him in opposite directions causing plaintiff’s shirt to choke 

him.” Plaintiff responded by “allowing his body to go completely limp.” Plaintiff was 

“dragged” to the Program Office and forced back into a prone position. Lt. Smith was 

summoned.

In response to Lt. Smith’s question, Plaintiff “began explaining what the problem was as 

he perceived it.” Smith yelled at Plaintiff, telling him to spit out the tooth pick that was in his 

mouth. Smith ordered Tyler to pepper spray Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that:

As soon as plaintiff saw the canister nozzle pointed at his face he 

instantly began repeatedly yelling that he is an epileptic who 

suffers from severe seizures which are also instigated by pepper 

spray. Defendant Tyler sprayed plaintiff directly in his face, twice, 

while plaintiff was still cuffed and in a prone position. Plaintiff 

immediately began seizing and woke up hours later in the TTA 

clinic restrained to a bed.” 

(Compl. ¶¶ 22-24.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Daveiga, “by his acts and omissions supported the acts 

and omissions of his subordinate defendants which adversely affected plaintiff.” Plaintiff alleges 

that Defendant Kranrod did not properly treat plaintiff’s severe reaction to the pepper spray, and 

filed a false medical report, stating that Plaintiff suffered no actual injuries. Plaintiff alleges that 

“throughout the reports of other defendants,” he learned that he was foaming at the mouth and 

seizing once he was sprayed.

B. Eighth Amendment Claims

1. Excessive Force

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, 112 S.Ct. 

995 (1992) (citations omitted). For claims of excessive physical force, the issue is “whether 

force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and 

sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Although de minimis uses of force do not 

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 3 of 6
4

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

violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates the 

Eighth Amendment, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Id. at 9-10; see

also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force 

standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). 

Plaintiff’s allegations describing the incident of physical force on March 13, 2012, are 

sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief against Defendants Smith, Tyler and Palermo for use of 

excessive physical force.

2. Denial of Medical Treatment

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an 

inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). 

The two part test for deliberate indifference requires a plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical 

need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further 

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. 

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). 

The Court finds that the allegations at to Defendant Kranrod are vague. Plaintiff alleges 

that he falsified a medical report, and that Plaintiff later learned that, at the time he was sprayed, 

he suffered a seizure, foaming at the mouth. Plaintiff does not specifically allege what specific 

injury he had when he presented to Defendant Kranrod, and how Kranrod’s actions injured 

Plaintiff. Kranrod was not present when Plaintiff was pepper sprayed. An allegation of a 

falsified medical report, with nothing else, fails to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff must allege 

facts indicating that Kranrod knew of a particular harm to Plaintiff and acted with deliberate 

indifference to that harm. Taking the facts of the complaint as true, Plaintiff alleges that he was 

injured by Defendants Smith, Tyler and Palermo, and that Kranrod falsified a medical report. 

These facts are insufficient to state a claim for relief. 

///

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 4 of 6
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

C. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff also names as defendants Captain Daveiga and Warden Vasquez. Government 

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

superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a government official cannot be 

held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead that 

the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at 673. In other 

words, to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named defendant 

with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights.

Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts indicating personal participation by either Daveiga or 

Vasquez.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states claims under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 

Smith, Tyler, and Palermo for use of excessive physical force. The complaint does not state any 

other cognizable claims. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 

809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 

(7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

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

only on the claims identified in this order as cognizable, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in 

writing, and the Court will issue a recommendation for dismissal of the other claims and 

defendants, and will forward to Plaintiff three summonses and three USM-285 forms for 

completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the United States 

Marshal to initiate service of process.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 5 of 6
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

27

28

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 

complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendants Smith, Tyler 

and Palermo for use of excessive physical force; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action for

failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:12-cv-02038-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 6 of 6