Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00642/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00642-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cedric Greene
Plaintiff
S. Sandaval
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

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SANDAVAL, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00642-AWI-NEW (DLB) PC

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION,

WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. 1)

OBJECTION DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. Finding and Recommendation Following Screening of Complaint

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Cedric Greene (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June

1, 2007. 

“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). “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.”

Case 1:07-cv-00642-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 07/06/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief

could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at

514. 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)).

B. Eighth Amendment Claim

Plaintiff was a state prisoner housed at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi

when the event giving rise to this suit allegedly occurred. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and

injunctive relief.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant S. Sandaval, a correctional officer, refused to issue plaintiff

his hot evening meal on October 19, 2006. (Doc. 1, §§ IV, V.) Plaintiff alleges this punishment

violated his rights.

To constitute cruel 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

Case 1:07-cv-00642-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 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 It is not clear if plaintiff was not issued an evening meal at all on October 19, 2006, or if the meal plaintiff 1

was issued simply was not hot. Either way, the claim fails as a matter of law.

3

disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Id. at 837-45. Prison officials

may avoid liability by presenting evidence that they lacked knowledge of the risk, or by presenting

evidence of a reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, response to the risk. Id. at 844-45. Mere negligence

on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the official’s

conduct must have been wanton. Id. at 835; Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128. 

“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 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-of-confinement 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 failure to issue plaintiff a hot evening meal on October 19, 2006, is not an extreme

deprivation that rises to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of 1

law and the court recommends dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. The deficiency is not curable, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000), and the

court HEREBY RECOMMENDS dismissal ofthis action, with prejudice, forfailure to state a claim.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 1:07-cv-00642-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 07/06/07 Page 3 of 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

4

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 6, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00642-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 07/06/07 Page 4 of 4