Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00105-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coker
Defendant
T. Day
Defendant
Lanard Kitchens
Plaintiff
Leach
Defendant
Tordsen
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANARD KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORDSEN et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-0105-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Lanard Kitchens (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action on January 24, 2012. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) No other

parties have appeared. Plaintiff’s Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

I. 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 “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 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 9
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

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

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

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 129

S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed

misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.

Id. at 1949-50.

II. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Plaintiff brings this action for violations of his rights under the First Amendment,

Fourteenth Amendment, and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120980. Plaintiff is currently

incarcerated at Wasco State Prison. He was previously incarcerated as a pretrial detainee

at Kings County Jail, where the alleged underlying events occurred. Plaintiff names the

following individuals as defendants: 1) Tordsen, Kings County Deputy Sheriff/ Correctional

Officer, 2) Senior Deputy Leach, Acting Shift Supervisor at Kings County Jail, 3) Deputy

Sheriff T. Day, Correctional Officer at Kings County Jail, and 4) Sergeant Coker, Shift

Supervisor at Kings County Jail.

His allegations, are as follows:

On December 29, 2010, Defendant Tordsen assigned Plaintiff to a cell that was

covered in feces. (Compl. at 8.) The cell had been covered in feces by its prior mentallydisturbed occupant and was not cleaned before Plaintiff was transferred into the cell. (Id.) 

Defendant Tordsen provided Plaintiff with glass cleaner and toilet paper to use to clean the

cell. (Id. at 9.) Usually workers, not inmates, clean the cells. (Id.) Plaintiff complained to

Defendant Tordsen about the situation but he refused to move Plaintiff, provide him with

a grievance form, or give him additional cleaning supplies. (Id. at 10.) 

After Defendant Tordsen refused to move him, Plaintiff indicated he was suicidal

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 2 of 9
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

and asked to be transferred to Suicide Watch. (Compl. at 11-12.) Plaintiff only made this

request because he did not want to continue to stay in his assigned cell. (Id. at 11.) 

Defendants Coker, Leach, and Day responded to Plaintiff’s alarm. (Id.) They said Plaintiff

could either clean his assigned cell or go to Suicide Watch. (Id.) Defendants ultimately

escorted him to Suicide Watch and unlawfully withheld his prior commissary purchase. (Id.

at 12.) Plaintiff was removed from Suicide Watch the next day. (Id. at 13.)

Defendant Tordsen had Plaintiff returned to the filthy cell. (Compl. at 14.) Plaintiff

began cleaning the cell and during the process fell on the floor. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff was

not treated for eight days and was ultimately found to have “facial paralysis.” (Id.)

Defendant Tordsen subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment by placing

him in the filthy cell and having Plaintiff clean it; Defendant Day subjected Plaintiff to cruel

and unusual punishment by placing him on Suicide Watch, not providing Plaintiff with his

commissary purchase, and not having Plaintiff’s assigned cell cleaned; Defendants Coker

and Leach subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment by allowing Defendant Day

to carry out his actions; and Defendants Tordsen, Coker, Leach, and Day retaliated against

Plaintiff by not providing him with grievance forms. (Compl. at 15-16.)

Plaintiff asks for declaratory relief, a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering

staff members to stop retaliating against Plaintiff and for a change of venue in his criminal

proceedings, $1,500,000 in compensatory damages against each Defendant, and a jury

trial.

III. ANALYSIS

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims

42 U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94

(1989).

-3-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 3 of 9
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

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 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. See

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245

(9th Cir.1987).

B. Pre-Adjudication Detainees

It appears that Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at the time that the underlying

actions occurred.

“[C]ivil detainees retain greater liberty protections than individuals detained under

criminal process, and pre-adjudication detainees retain greater liberty protections than

convicted ones. . . .” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). 

Treatment is presumptively punitive when a civil detainee is confined in conditions identical

to, similar to, or more restrictive than his criminal counterparts, and when a preadjudication civil detainee is detained under conditions more restrictive than a postadjudication civil detainee would face. Id. at 932-33.

Civil detainees “are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of

confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” 

Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982) (citation omitted).

C. Official Capacity

As pled, Plaintiff cannot recover the relief he seeks in his Complaint. Plaintiff

explicitly states that all Defendants are named in their official capacities. The Supreme

Court has held that a suit against a state-employed individual in his official capacity is “no

different from a suit against the State itself.” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491

U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Because Defendants are employed by the State of California, to the

extent that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants in their official capacity,

such claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Blaylock v. Schwinden, 862 F.2d

1352, 1353-54 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, Plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages as long

as Defendants are named in their official capacities. If Plaintiff amends his Complaint, he

-4-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 4 of 9
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

should only name Defendants in their individual capacities or omit any claim for monetary

damages. 

D. First Amendment Claim

Plaintiff alleges that the refusal of Defendants Tordsen, Coker, Leach, and Day

refused to provide him with grievance forms constituted unlawful retaliation against him

under the First Amendment. A claim of retaliation for having exercised a First Amendment

right requires an inmate to have previously engaged in protected First Amendment activity. 

Here Plaintiff alleges he was denied the ability to exercise his First Amendment rights. 

Accordingly, his claim seems better characterized as a general First Amendment claim and

will be so analyzed here. 

There is a First Amendment right to petition the government through prison

grievance procedures. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005). However, there is also a general

requirement that there also be some kind of injury to state a cognizable claim. See

Brodheim, 548 F.3d at 1269 (quoting Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567-68) (prisoner must allege

that an adverse action taken in response to prisoner’s protected First Amendment activity

had a chilling effect on prisoner’s ability to exercise of his First Amendment rights); Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346-348 (1996) (recognizing a fundamental constitutional right of

access to the courts, but also requiring that plaintiff show he suffered from an actual injury).

Plaintiff alleges Defendants Tordsen, Coker, Leach and Day failed to provide him

with grievance forms during a two-day period. Plaintiff does not explain whether he

ultimately suffered any loss or injury from this failure. Plaintiff has failed to state a First

Amendment claim related to Defendants’ refusal to provide him with grievance forms.

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend this claim. In his amended complaint he should

explain whether he suffered any adverse consequences as a result of Defendants’ failure

to provide him with grievance forms when he asked for them. 

E. Conditions of Confinement

Plaintiff alleges a cruel and unusual punishment claim against Defendants Tordsen,

-5-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 5 of 9
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

Coker, Leach, and Day for unlawfully housing him in a cell covered with feces and making

him clean the cell. 

A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing of his

liberty interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. Plaintiff

is “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals

whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires

only that courts ensure that professional judgment was exercised. Youngberg, 457 U.S.

at 321-22. A “decision, if made by a professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be

imposed only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from

accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person

responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Id. at 322-23;

compare Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 2010)

(rejecting the Youngberg standard and applying the deliberate indifference standard to a

pretrial detainee’s right to medical care, and noting that pretrial detainees, who are

confined to ensure presence at trial, are not similarly situated to those civilly committed).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Tordsen placed him in a cell covered in feces and

told Plaintiff he was responsible for cleaning the cell. Plaintiff informed Defendants Coker,

Leach, and Day about the situation but they refused to move Plaintiff to another, clean cell. 

They only gave Plaintiff the option of remaining in the filthy cell or moving to Suicide

Watch. Defendant Tordsen also forced Plaintiff to remain in the dirty cell after he was

removed from Suicide Watch.

All of these Defendants were aware of the allegedly unhygienic and unsafe

conditions Plaintiff was placed in. None of these Defendants made any attempt to rectify

the situation. They ultimately had Plaintiff clean the cell on his own without proper

equipment or protective gear.

Plaintiff adequately alleges a jail condition that was as restrictive, and at times more

restrictive, than conditions imposed upon criminal pretrial detainees and/or convicted

criminals serving their jail sentences. The conditions were therefore presumptively

-6-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 6 of 9
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

punitive. Jones, 393 F.3d at 932. However Plaintiff has only named Defendants’ in their

official capacity. As the Court explained, Plaintiff cannot receive monetary damages from

state officials like Defendants in their official capacities. In order to receive his requested

relief under this claim, Plaintiff must amend his pleadings and name the Defendants in their

individual capacities.

F. California Health & Safety Code § 120980

Plaintiff also alleges violations under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120980. (Compl.

at 17.)

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120980 deals with unauthorized disclosures of a

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”) test. Plaintiff has not alleged that there was any

such test much less an unauthorized disclosure of such a test. Plaintiff has failed to state

a claim under this section.

G. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, requesting that staff members stop retaliatingagainst

him and provide him with a copy of his medical records. (Compl. at 18.) He also asks for

a change of venue in his criminal proceedings. (Compl. at 18.) 

Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right.” Winter v.

Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary

injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer

irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S.

674, 689–90 (2008)).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires that any preliminary injunction “be narrowly drawn,

extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary

relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. §

3626(a).

The Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Plaintiff asks

-7-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 7 of 9
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

that unnamed individuals stop retaliating against him, that he be provided with medical

records, and that he have a change of venue in his criminal proceedings. Plaintiff has not

linked specific defendants to these requests. In addition, it appears this action was

initiated while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Kings County Jail against officials there for

actions occurring there. This Court does not have jurisdiction over unnamed and unserved

individuals at Plaintiff’s current prison, Wasco State Prison. It has no authority to order any

such a person to act as Plaintiff requests even if such an order were otherwise proper. It

is not. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which monetary relief may be granted

under § 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend to cure the

deficiencies in his claim. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130; 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). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state

what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,

Iqbal, S. Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at

555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the prior 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 it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed January 24, 2012, is dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which Plaintiff’s requested relief may be granted under § 1983;

-8-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 8 of 9
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. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall

file an amended complaint; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Order,

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-9-

Case 1:12-cv-00105-SJM-MJS Document 23 Filed 12/03/12 Page 9 of 9