Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00912/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00912-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cantu
Defendant
F. Martinez
Defendant
Northcuff
Defendant
Sanchez
Defendant
Allen Scribner
Defendant
Efrem Stutson
Plaintiff

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

EFREM STUTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLEN SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS MARTINEZ,

NORTHCUFF, AND CANTU FOR

EXCESSIVE FORCE

(Doc. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTICE OF

WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED DUE WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff Efrem Stutson (“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 June

25, 2007. 

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 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 03/17/08 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

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.” 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 Excessive Force Claim

Plaintiff is currently housed at High Desert State Prison. The event at issue in this action

allegedly occurred at California State Prison-Corcoran. Plaintiff names Warden Allen Scribner,

Sergeant F. Martinez, and Correctional Officers Northcuff, Sanchez, Cantu, and Landry as

defendants. The claim in this action arises from an incident of alleged excessive force, in violation

of the Eighth Amendment.

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] 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. (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates

contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is evident. Id.

at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment excessive force

standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However, not “every

malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Id. at 9. “The Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 03/17/08 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

3

recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort

repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks and citations

omitted). 

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

the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, 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.”

Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be proper

to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of

force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to

temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

“The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, but does not end

it.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s alleges that after an incident in which he and his new cellmate exchanged blows,

four cans of pepper spray were emptied into their cell, and plaintiff was kicked and hit by staff.

Plaintiff alleges that at the time, he and his cellmate were no longer fighting, and were compliant and

non-resistant. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Martinez participated in the pepper spraying the cell

and stood bywhile subordinate officers beat plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Northcuff and

Cantu were involved in beating him. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained serious injuries in the

incident, including fractures to his jaw and cheekbone and damage to his left eye. 

These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for relief under section 1983 against

defendants Martinez, Northcuff, and Cantu. However, plaintiff has not alleged any facts linking

defendants Scribner, Sanchez, and Landry to a violation of his rights. Defendant Scribner is not

liable for the incident of excessive force based simply on his position as warden of the prison, and

there are no facts demonstrating that he was personally involved in the incident or knew about it and

failed to take action to prevent it. Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendant

Sanchez was involved in moving plaintiff to the new cell in which the fight with his cellmate

occurred and defendant Landry was the in the control booth operating the cell door. There are no

facts alleged supporting a claim that either defendant acted or failed to act in a manner which

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 03/17/08 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

violated plaintiff’s federal rights. For these reasons, plaintiff fails to state a claim against Scribner,

Sanchez, or Landry.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against

defendants Martinez, Northcuff, and Cantu for use of excessive force, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. However, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim under section 1983 against

defendants Scribner, Sanchez, and Landry. The court will provide plaintiff the opportunity to file

an amended complaint, if plaintiff wishes to do so.

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

against defendants Martinez, Northcuff, and Cantu for use of excessive force, plaintiff may so notify

the court in writing, and the court will issue a Findings and Recommendations recommending that

defendants Scribner, Sanchez, and Landry be dismissed from this action, and will forward plaintiff

three summonses and three USM-285 forms for completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms,

the court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process.

In the event that plaintiff does wish to file an amended complaint, 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.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy,

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

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under section 1983 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). 

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 03/17/08 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 defendants Martinez, Northcuff, and

Cantu for use of excessive force 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: March 14, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00912-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 03/17/08 Page 5 of 5