Gomez v. Swaim

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending 23 Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 04/10/2013. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 4/29/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FRED GOMEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
SERGEANT SWAIM, et al.,

14

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01436-AWI-DLB PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
ECF No. 23
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

15
16
17

I.

Background
Plaintiff Fred Gomez (“Plaintiff’) is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of

18

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

19

this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 26, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action by

20

filing his complaint. On May 2, 2012, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for

21

relief against Defendant Swaim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in

22

violation of the Eighth Amendment. On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

23

Complaint, which was docketed on November 13, 2012. ECF No. 23. The First Amended

24

Complaint is before the Court for screening.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
1

1

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

2

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

3

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

4

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

5
6

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

7

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

8

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

9

U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

10

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual

11

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

12

II.

13

Summary of First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff was incarcerated at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”) in Delano, California, where

14

the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants sergeant Swaim, John

15

Does 1 through 6, lieutenant G. Becerra, captain K. Daviega, and warden Maurice Junious.

16

Plaintiff alleges the following. On April 5, 2010, Defendant John Doe 1 and 2 denied

17

Plaintiff his evening meal. On April 6, 2010, Defendants John Does 3 and 4 denied Plaintiff his

18

breakfast and lunch meals. On April 6, 2010, Defendant Does 5 and 6 denied Plaintiff his dinner

19

meal. Plaintiff complained to sergeant Swaim, who informed Plaintiff that he would not be

20

receiving his meals as punishment for being cell-extracted.

21

Plaintiff was also placed under management cell status, which included denial of: mattress,

22

linen, blankets, towel, cleaning clothing, socks, soap, toilet paper, spoon, cup, toothbrush or

23

toothpaste, pens and pencils, paper, mail, and legal materials. Plaintiff was forced to sleep in a cold

24

cell with temperatures beyond freezing, on a metal bunk without covering. Plaintiff was issued only

25

one pair of boxers over twenty two days. Plaintiff suffered from hallucinations, sleep deprivation,

26

disorientation. Defendants Swaim, Becerra, Daviega, and Junious forced the management cell status

27

on Plaintiff.

28

Plaintiff contends a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff requests as relief
2

1

compensatory and punitive damages, and costs of suit.1

2

III.

3

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

4

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

5

confinement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347

6

(1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide

7

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Rhodes, 452 U.S.

8

at 347. To prevail on a claim that a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment right to humane conditions of

9

confinement were violated, the prisoner must prove that the prison official knew of and disregarded

10

an excessive risk to the prisoner’s safety, which was presented by the conditions of his confinement.

11

Robinson v. Prunty, 249 F.3d 862, 866 (9th Cir. 2001). A claim challenging a prisoner’s condition of

12

confinement is analyzed under the deliberate indifference standard. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34.

13

A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met.

14

First, the deprivation must be, objectively, sufficiently serious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34. In

15

determining whether a deprivation is sufficiently serious to satisfy the first component of the

16

deliberate indifference standard, a court must consider the circumstances, nature, and duration of the

17

deprivation. Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979). The more basic the need, the

18

shorter the time it may be withheld. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000).

19

Second, the prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” that is, one of

20

deliberate indifference to the inmate’s health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison official

21

may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment only if he knows the inmate faces a substantial risk

22

of serious harm and the official disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.

23

Id. at 847. “[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence”

24

but does not require a “purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Id. at 835.

25

Liability requires a showing that “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate

26

health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn

27

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.

28

1

Plaintiff also requests criminal charges against Defendants and to be released from the security housing unit.
Both requests are beyond the scope of this civil action and will be denied.

3

1

A.

2

The denial of four meals over twenty-four hours does not constitute a sufficiently serious

3

harm for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 813 (9th Cir.

4

2009) (finding denial of sixteen meals over twenty-three days with accompanying physical effect to

5

be sufficiently serious harm, but denial of two meals over nine weeks was not). Plaintiff also fails to

6

allege how he was harmed regarding the denial of four meals. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a

7

claim against any Defendants for this claim. As this is the only claim against the Doe Defendants,

8

they should be dismissed from this action.

9

B.

10

Denial of Four Meals

Management Cell Status for Twenty-Two Days

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that being on management cell status, in a cold cell that was

11

beyond freezing temperature, with no covering, constitutes a sufficiently serious harm. Keenan v.

12

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.

13

1980)) (“The Eighth Amendment guarantees adequate heating.”), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th

14

Cir. 1998). Plaintiff alleges that the four named Defendants were responsible for placing Plaintiff on

15

management cell status. Accordingly, Plaintiff has sufficiently stated an Eighth Amendment claim

16

against Defendants Swaim, Becerra, Daviega, and Junious for placing Plaintiff on management cell

17

status for twenty-two days without adequate heating.

18

IV.

Conclusion and Recommendation

19

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

20

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Defendants Swaim,

21

Becerra, Daviega, and Junious for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s conditions of

22

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment for placing Plaintiff on management

23

cell status for twenty-two days without adequate heating;

24
25

2. Plaintiff’s claim regarding denial of four meals over twenty-four hours be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

26

3. Defendants Does be dismissed from this action.

27

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

28

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days
4

1

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections

2

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

3

Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within

4

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised

5

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

6

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

April 10, 2013

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

DEAC_Signature-END:

11

3b142a

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5