Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00162/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00162-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martinez
Defendant
James Edward Roberts
Plaintiff
Salano
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

JAMES EDWARD ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

SALANO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY ON CLAIM FOUND TO BE

COGNIZABLE

(Doc. 1)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff James Edward Roberts (“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 filed this action on

January 31, 2008.

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 appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 09/02/08 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

“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

Plaintiff alleges that while on the yard at California State Prison-Corcoran on August 11,

2007, Defendant Salano disclosed his private medical condition to another inmate. Plaintiff alleges

that Salano told the other inmate Plaintiff is HIV positive so that other inmates would harass

Plaintiff. Defendant Martinez, who was the building supervisor, allegedly failed to hold his officer

accountable for his conduct.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against the

disclosure of personal matters, Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 598-99, 97 S.Ct. 869 (1977), which

“clearly encompasses medical information and its confidentiality,” Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence

Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). “[T]he right to informational

privacy applies both when an individual chooses not to disclose highly sensitive information to the

government and when an individual seeks assurance that such information will not be made public.”

Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Lawall, 307 F.3d 783, 789-90 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations

omitted). The privacy protection afforded medical information is not absolute, and may be infringed

upon a showing of proper governmental interest. Lawall, 307 F.3d at 790 (citations omitted). The

governmental interest in disclosure must advance a legitimate state interest and the government’s

action must be narrowly tailored to meet the legitimate interest. Roe v. Sherry, 91 F.3d 1270, 1274

(9th Cir. 1996) (quotations and citation omitted). 

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 09/02/08 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

 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from inhumane 1

conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Extreme deprivations are

required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized

measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). In order to state a claim for

violation of the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must alleges facts sufficient to support a claim that prison officials

knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825,847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

3

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under section 1983

against Defendant Salano for revealing his HIV status to another inmate, in violation of the Due

Process Clause. However, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a claim that Salano’s actions rose

to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, and to the extent that Plaintiff is even attempting to

pursue such a claim, it fails.

1

Defendant Martinez allegedly failed to take action against his subordinate after being made

aware of the situation. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the

defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the

Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006).

“A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person ‘does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally

required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500

F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he

‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal

participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’” Id.

(quoting Johnson at 743-44). Further, although “there is no pure respondeat superior liability under

§ 1983, [and] a supervisor [may only be held] liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates

‘if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act

to prevent them.’” Id. (quoting Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which would provide a basisfor the imposition of liability

on Defendant Martinez under section 1983. There are no allegations that Martinez was involved in

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 09/02/08 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

the disclosure of Plaintiff’s medical information, and his failure to punish Salano after the fact did

not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim under against Defendant Salano for violating Plaintiff’s

right to informational privacy under the Due Process Clause, but fails to state a claim against

Defendant Martinez. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. 

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

against Defendant Salano on his due process claim, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing, and

the Court will issue a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendant Martinez be

dismissed from this action, and will forward Plaintiff one summons and one USM-285 form for

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

to initiate service of process.

If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in brief but specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability 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 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 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.

///

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 09/02/08 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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send 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 Defendant Salano on his due

process claim; and

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

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 30, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00162-LJO-GSA Document 6 Filed 09/02/08 Page 5 of 5