Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01853/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01853-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenny Chase
Plaintiff
J. Lopez
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNY CHASE, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

J. LOPEZ,

 Defendant.

1:14-cv-01853-EPG-PC

 

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 4.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. BACKGROUND

Kenny Chase (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

November 3, 2014 as part of a purported class action brought by a fellow inmate. (ECF No. 1.) 

The Court1dismissed that case because it was not a proper class action and gave leave for the 

individual plaintiffs to file separate lawsuits. (ECF No. 2) Plaintiff filed his own first amended 

civil rights complaint on December 4, 2014. (ECF No. 4) In it, he alleges that prison officials 

negligently failed to secure cleaning implements, which could have been used as weapons. He 

 

1 The prior order was issued by Magistrate Judge Austin.

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8
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

then alleges that after an ensuing riot, prison officials put Plaintiff back in the same 

environment as the inmates who rioted. Plaintiff then asks for compensation. 

This Court finds that, taken alone, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff 

does not describe the involvement of any individual defendant, does not allege facts showing 

that any defendant knew of a risk and deliberately disregarded it, and does not allege any injury

to himself. Because the Court finds upon screening that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, it 

dismisses Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.2

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 Afrivolous 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). ANotwithstanding 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). 

A complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, Courts Aare not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

 

2 On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix 

A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix 

A(k)(3).

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 8
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

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Id. 

III. PRIOR SCREENING ORDER

The Court previously screened a related complaint brought by inmate Tyree Hicks, 

which was brought as a class action. (ECF No. 2). The Court dismissed that complaint 

because it was improperly filed as a class action, but gave individual plaintiffs leave to file 

individual amended complaints. In doing so, the Court included the following direction:

Plaintiffs allege in their November 3, 2014 Complaint that they were placed at 

risk of harm by Officer J. Lopez. When filing their amended complaints, each 

plaintiff must allege facts in his own case concerning his individual 

circumstances. Each plaintiff must give sufficient information about what 

occured to cause risk of harm to him. 

Each amended complaint must also specifically state how each defendant is 

involved. Each plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights.

ECF No. 2, at p. 3. 

Consistent with that order, the Court now evaluates Plaintiff‟s complaint standing alone. 

The Court‟s decision does not apply to any other individual‟s complaint, which must allege the 

necessary facts about each individual on its own. 

IV. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

The events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at North Kern 

State Prison (NKSP), when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff names as defendants J. Lopez 

(correctional officer, or “C/O”), M. Vega (correctional sergeant), and J. Tangen (correctional 

lieutenant). He asserts two claims: (1) negligence, and (2) freedom from cruel and unusual 

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 8
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

punishment. 

Regarding the negligence claim, Plaintiff claims that prison officials failed to lock up 

cleaning supplies such as brooms and mops, which could be used as weapons. 

Regarding the cruel and unusual punishment claim, Plaintiff claims that he was put into 

a hostile environment with the same attacking Latino inmates without his consent and spent 90 

days in that situation, causing him heightened stress and anxiety.

It is also worth noting that Plaintiff indicates he did not file a grievance before filing 

this lawsuit because it was “N/A,” i.e., not applicable.

V. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

A. Legal Standards

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects prisoners against 

cruel and unusual punishment. Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials are ... 

prohibited from being deliberately indifferent to policies and practices that expose inmates to a 

substantial risk of serious harm.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 677 (9th Cir. 2014); see also

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994)

(prison official violates Eighth Amendment if he or she knows of a substantial risk of serious 

harm to an inmate and fails to take reasonable measures to avoid the harm). “Deliberate 

indifference occurs when „[an] official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a 

substantial risk of serious harm.‟” Solis v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 957 (9th Cir. 

2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 841). 

“The second step, showing „deliberate indifference,‟ involves a two part inquiry.” 

Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). “First, the inmate must show that the 

prison officials were aware of a „substantial risk of serious harm‟ to an inmate's health or 

safety.” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “This part of [the] inquiry may be satisfied if the 

inmate shows that the risk posed by the deprivation is obvious.” Id. (citation omitted). “Second, 

the inmate must show that the prison officials had no „reasonable‟ justification for the 

deprivation, in spite of that risk.” Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844 (“[P]rison officials who 

actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if 

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 8
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

they responded reasonably.”) (footnote omitted).

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim based on the allegations in the complaint for cruel 

and unusual punishment. He does not allege that prison officials knew of a serious risk to 

inmate safety. Indeed, he does not allege the knowledge or actions of any individual defendant. 

Elsewhere he alleges that leaving out the cleaning implements was negligence, not deliberate 

disregard of Plaintiff‟s safety. He does not allege that any individual defendant deliberately 

ignored safety concerns by leaving out cleaning implements or putting inmates in the vicinity 

of other inmates. 

He also does not describe any substantial harm that resulted from prison official‟s 

actions. He refers to a riot, but does not state how this was connected to defendants‟ actions. 

He does not allege that he was hurt in the riot. He also does not describe the environment in 

which he was housed with the rioting inmates in any detail to determine if it unreasonably and 

deliberately exposed Plaintiff to harm. Overall, Plaintiff‟s allegations are vague and fail to 

abide by the Court‟s direction to “specifically state how each defendant is involved. Each 

plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his 

rights.”

VI. NEGLIGENCE

A. Legal Standards

Plaintiff‟s complaint is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 4, at p. 1.) To state a 

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 

108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). It is well-established that neither negligence nor gross 

negligence is actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835–36; 

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.1990) (gross negligence insufficient to 

state claim for denial of medical needs to prisoner). The applicable standard is one of deliberate 

indifference to inmate health or safety under the Eighth Amendment, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 8
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

834; Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302 (1991), or, in the case of allegations of excessive 

force, the prisoner must show that officials applied force “maliciously and sadistically for the 

very purpose of causing harm,” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 

L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff‟s complaint for negligence is not actionable under section 1983. Put another 

way, prisoners such as plaintiff do not have a constitutional right to be free from negligence 

from prison officials, and having cleaning supplies and broom and mops negligently left out 

does not meant that Plaintiff‟s constitutional rights were violated. 

If Plaintiff had stated a federal constitutional claim under section 1983, the Court could 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim, but it cannot do so without a 

viable federal claim. 

VII. EXHAUSTION

A. Statutory Exhaustion Requirement

Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) provides that 

A[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. ' 1983], or any 

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). Prisoners 

are required to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 

549 U.S. 199, 211, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-19 (2007); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-

1201 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion is required regardless of the relief sought by the prisoner and 

regardless of the relief offered by the process, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 

1819 (2001), and the exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life, 

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 993 (2002). 

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff indicates on his complaint that he has not exhausted his administrative 

remedies. He has checked the box “No” in response to the form question “Have you filed an 

appeal or grievance concerning ALL of the facts contained in this complaint?” (ECF No. 4, p. 

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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). He indicated “N/A” in response to the question “If your answer is no, explain why not.” 

Given this description, the Court has serious concerns about whether Plaintiff has 

properly exhausted administrative remedies. However, as exhaustion is an affirmative defense 

that need not be pled in a prisoner complaint, this is not a reason to dismiss Plaintiff‟s case. 

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007) (“We conclude that failure to exhaust is an affirmative 

defense under the PLRA, and that inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate 

exhaustion in their complaints.”). That said, Plaintiff should consider this issue in deciding 

whether to file an amended complaint.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable 

claim upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “leave to amend shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” It is unclear whether there exist facts that would state a 

claim as to this individual Plaintiff, but the Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 

thirty days if he chooses to do so.

The amended complaint must allege constitutional violations under the law as discussed 

above. Specifically, Plaintiff must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There 

is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own 

misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant

personally participated in the deprivation of his rights by acting with deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff‟s health or safety, which is sufficiently serious. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis 

added). Plaintiff must also describe how if at all Plaintiff himself was injured. Plaintiff should 

note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of 

changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

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

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

v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete 

in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

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

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “Second Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint, filed on December 4, 2014, is 

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim under § 1983, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified by the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual 

allegations would state a claim, within thirty (30) days from the date of service 

of this order;

4. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:14-cv-01853-EPG-PC; 

5. If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall file a notice 

of voluntary dismissal; and

6. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for 

failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01853-EPG Document 10 Filed 01/21/16 Page 8 of 8