Johnson v. Pleasant Valley State Prison et al

Filing 13

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be Dismissed in its Entirety, With Prejudice, for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted re 12 First Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/16/2012. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LEONARD JOHNSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:11-cv–00191-LJO-BAM PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSING ACTION,
WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM

v.
PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON,
et al.,

(ECF No. 12)

13
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

14
/
15
16

I.

Screening Requirement

17

Plaintiff Leonard Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on February 3, 2011. On

19

February 16, 2012, an order issued dismissing the complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state

20

a claim. (ECF No. 11.) Currently before the Court is the first amended complaint, filed March 14,

21

2012. (ECF No. 12.)

22

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

23

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

24

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

25

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks

26

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

27

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard

28

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and
1

1

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

2

“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it

3

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v.

4

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

5

544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007)).

6

This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for

7

relief. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

8

“[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops

9

short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at

10

1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual

11

allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true.

12

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

13

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

14

II.

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim

15

A.

16

Plaintiff, who is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

17

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”), and brings this

18

action against Defendants Matthew Cate, R. H. Brazelton, and S. Lonigro alleging deliberate

19

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Summary of Allegations

20

Shortly after being transferred to PVSP on August 20, 2010, Plaintiff began experiencing flu-

21

like symptoms and was eventually diagnosed with Valley Fever. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

22

were aware through CDCR memorandums that PVSP and seven other facilities were constructed in

23

“hypereudemic” areas. Defendants allegedly have ignored a threat to Plaintiff, and every other

24

prisoner who is housed at PVSP, by placing them where they are exposed to “environmental

25

hazards” in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

26

Plaintiff claims that it has been determined by various publications and news outlets that Rodney

27

Blionen, former undersecretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, Assemblyman Jim

28

Costa and the former Mayor of Coalinga came into a collective agreement to deliberately poison and
2

1

subject prisoners to a toxic environment for the financial benefit of the economy and the CDCR.

2

B.

3

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other

4

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092

5

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v.

6

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each

7

defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Simmons

8

v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588

9

F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.

Legal Standard

10

Further, liability may not be imposed under section 1983 against supervisory personnel for

11

the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 129

12

S.Ct. at 1948-49; Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1020-21; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.

13

Supervisors may be held liable only if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

14

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989);

15

accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570

16

(9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th

17

Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).

18

“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects

19

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of

20

confinement.” Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). “[W]hile conditions

21

of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they ‘must not involve the wanton and

22

unnecessary infliction of pain.’” Id. (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct.

23

2392 (1981)). “What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual

24

Punishment Clause depends upon the claim at issue. . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8, 112

25

S.Ct. 995 (1992). “[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment]

26

conditions-of-confinement claim.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect to this

27

type of claim, “[b]ecause routine discomfort is part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for

28

their offenses against society, only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s
3

1

necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id.

2

(quotations and citations omitted).

3

Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of confinement, prison

4

officials may be held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of

5

serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). The deliberate indifference

6

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

7

objective terms, “sufficiently serious. . . .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970

8

(1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321 (1991)). Second, the prison

9

official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. . . .” Farmer,

10

511 U.S. at 837. Thus, a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying

11

humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of harm and

12

disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Id. at 837-45. Mere negligence

13

on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the official’s

14

conduct must have been wanton. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835; Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128.

15

C.

16

To state a claim that the presence or prevalence of Valley Fever at PVSP constituted a danger

17

to Plaintiff’s health, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that prison officials knew

18

of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to him. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847, 114

19

S.Ct. 1970; Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 2009); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

20

1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). Even if the risk of

21

contracting Valley Fever is higher at PVSP than in other areas of the state, the Court declines to find

22

that, due to its location, the prison itself constitutes a substantial risk of harm to inmates. See Harvey

23

v. Gonzalez, No. 2:10-cv-04803-VAP (SP), 2011 WL 4625710, *3 (C.D.Cal. July 27, 2011); James

24

v. Yates, No. 1:08-cv-01706-DLB PC, 2010 WL 2465407, *3-4 (E.D.Cal. June 15, 2010); Burr v.

25

Schwarzenegger, No. 2:10-cv-0120-GEB-GGH, 2010 WL 1611371, *2 (E.D.Cal. April 20, 2011).

26

There is no support for such a sweeping proposition, and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Eighth

27

Amendment claim arising from the mere fact that he is being housed at PVSP is not cognizable

28

under section 1983.

Discussion

4

1

Plaintiff’s allegations that Mr. Blionen, Assemblyman Costa, and the former Mayor of

2

Coalinga entered into an agreement for the financial benefit of the economy and CDCR is

3

insufficient to show that the named defendants in this action were aware that Plaintiff faced a

4

substantial risk of serious harm. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is devoid of any factual allegations

5

supporting a claim that the named defendants knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of harm to

6

his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. Neither mere negligence, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

7

97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1977); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled

8

on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc);

9

Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005), nor the bare fact that Plaintiff contracted

10

Valley Fever gives rise to a cognizable claim, Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. The Court finds that

11

Plaintiff has failed to state any viable claims under section 1983.

12

III.

Conclusion and Recommendation

13

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Under

14

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when

15

justice so requires.’” In addition, “[l]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all possible

16

that the plaintiff can correct the defect.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)

17

(internal citations omitted). However, in this action Plaintiff has been granted an opportunity to

18

amend the complaint, with guidance by the Court. Plaintiff has now filed two complaints without

19

alleging facts against any of the defendants sufficient to state a claim under § 1983. The Court finds

20

that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore

21

further leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809

22

F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

23

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action

24

be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

25

granted.

26

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

27

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

28

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
5

1

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

2

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

3

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

4

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

April 16, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6