Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01822/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01822-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles A. Edwards
Plaintiff
D. Smith
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES A. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMITH,

Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-01822 GSA (PC)

SCREENING ORDER (FOURTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT)

ECF No. 25

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE, OR IN 

THE ALTERNATIVE, THE FILING OF A 

FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN 

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 

rights action seeking relief under 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 302.

Before this Court is Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint (“4th AC”). For the reasons 

stated below, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As an alternative to filing the showing 

of cause, Plaintiff may file a fifth amended complaint that complies with the Court’s directions 

herein and with all previously issued orders related to amending a complaint.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/03/25 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

On October 10, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. ECF No. 

24. The screening found the TAC to be deficient. As a result, Plaintiff was given a final 

opportunity to amend. See id. He was given thirty days to do so. Id. at 6.

II. PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

On October 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s 4th AC was docketed. ECF No. 25. In it, he alleges that 

Defendant Don Smith and Defendant Lirio, both employees at Kern Valley State Prison, violated 

his constitutional rights when they: (1) did not decontaminate him after he had been pepper 

sprayed, and (2) used excessive force to restrain him. ECF No. 25 at 3-4. As a result, Plaintiff 

asserts his eyes and his entire body were left in terrible pain and he had a hard time seeing. Id. at 

4. He seeks $100,000.00 in damages. Id.

III. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

“[T]he government has an obligation to provide medical care for those whom it punishes 

by incarceration.” Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988) (brackets 

added) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)). To state a viable claim of deliberate 

indifference to serious medical need, a plaintiff must show that: (1) a serious medical need exists, 

and (2) defendant’s response was deliberately indifferent. Serious medical need can be shown by 

demonstrating that a failure to treat a prisoner could result in significant injury or worsening pain. 

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). A deliberately indifferent response can be 

shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need 

coupled with harm caused by that indifference. Id.

B. Excessive Force

“In its prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’ the Eighth Amendment places 

restraints on prison officials, who may not . . . use excessive physical force against prisoners.” 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)). 

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the 

[Eighth Amendment], the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith 

effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/03/25 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

3

503 U.S. at 6-7 (brackets added) (referencing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986)). Under the 

Eighth Amendment, a court looks for malicious and sadistic force, not merely objectively 

unreasonable force. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

A review of the 4th AC indicates that Plaintiff has raised potentially viable Eighth 

Amendment excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical need claims against 

Defendants Smith and Liro. However, glaringly absent from the pleading are the dates when 

these incidents occurred. See generally ECF No. 25. Without the dates of the incidents, the 

Court is unable to determine if the claims are timely and are sufficiently related. In addition, 

were the 4th AC to be served without this information, Defendants would be at a disadvantage 

because, amongst other things, they might be unable to determine when the events alleged 

occurred and/or whether the grievance process related to them was completed by Plaintiff.

In the Court’s last scheduling order, Plaintiff was instructed that it would be the last time 

that he would be granted leave to amend. See ECF No. 24 at 6. To date, Plaintiff has been given 

more than ample opportunity to file a viable complaint. Despite this fact, thus far, he has failed to 

do so.

However, given that: (1) Plaintiff states that he has mental health issues (see ECF No. 25 

at 2 ); (2) the 4th AC does potentially raise viable claims against Defendants, and (3) the only fact

at issue in the 4th AC is when the events in question occurred, instead of recommending outright 

dismissal of this matter, Plaintiff will first be ordered to show cause why it should not be 

dismissed, or, in the alternative to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may file a fifth amended 

complaint to fix the aforementioned deficiency.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s Civil Rights Complaint 

By a Prisoner form;

2. Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim; or,

3. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may file a fifth amended 

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/03/25 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

complaint which cures the deficiency identified in this order, and

4. Plaintiff shall have thirty days to take either course of action.

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order within the time allotted

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01822-JLT-GSA Document 26 Filed 01/03/25 Page 4 of 4