Melendez v. Biter et al

Filing 20

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's Response; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Mail Plaintiff an Endorsed Copy of the Second Amended Complaint, dated June 5, 2014, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/7/14.(30-Days) (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint, dated June 5, 2014)(Martin-Gill, S)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 1 of 11

1 Cayetano Melendez, D96382
California Health Care Facility
2 P.O. Box 32200 (Facility C)
Stockton, California 95213
3
In Propria Persona
4
Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)
5 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
6 Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone:
[phone]
7 Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
8
Limited Purpose Counsel for
9 Drafting the Second Amended Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FRESNO DIVISION
12
13

CAYETANO MELENDEZ,
Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

vs.

HUNT, in his individual capacity as a
16 Correctional Officer at the Kern Valley State
Prison; ARRIOLA, in his individual capacity as
17 a Correctional Officer at the Kern Valley State
Prison; CRUZ, in her individual capacity as a
18 Correctional Officer at the Kern Valley State
Prison; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
19
Defendants.
20

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

21

INTRODUCTION

22

While incarcerated in the Kern Valley State Prison, CAYETANO MELENDEZ was

23 subject to excessive force, inhuman conditions of confinement, and deliberate indifference to his
24 serious medical condition by Correctional Officer HUNT, while Correctional Officers ARRIOLA
25 and CRUZ failed to intercede.
26
27

JURISDICTION
1.

This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (in

28 that they arise under the Constitution of the United States); and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 2 of 11

1 (in that they are brought to address deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights,
2 privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution).
3

2.

Venue is proper in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of

4 California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California
5 and many of the acts and/or omissions complained of herein occurred in this District.
6

3.

Intradistrict venue is proper in the Fresno Division of the United State District

7 Court for the Eastern District of California under Local Rule 120(d), because this action arises
8 from acts and/or omissions which occurred in the County of Kern.
9

4.

Plaintiff is currently a prisoner housed at the California Health Care Facility located

10 in Stockton, California. Plaintiff has brought no other lawsuits while he was a prisoner, excluding
11 the instant action. Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies related to the facts
12 contained in this Complaint.
13
14

PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff CAYETANO MELENDEZ (“Plaintiff” or “MELENDEZ”) is currently a

15 prisoner housed at the California Health Care Facility located in Stockton, California.
16

6.

Defendant HUNT is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Correctional Officer

17 employed at the Kern Valley State Prison. HUNT was, at all times relevant herein, acting under
18 the color of state law. HUNT is sued in his individual capacity.
19

7.

Defendant ARRIOLA is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Correctional Officer

20 employed at the Kern Valley State Prison. ARRIOLA was, at all times relevant herein, acting
21 under the color of state law. ARRIOLA is sued in his individual capacity.
22

8.

Defendant CRUZ is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Correctional Officer

23 employed at the Kern Valley State Prison. CRUZ was, at all times relevant herein, acting under the
24 color of state law. CRUZ is sued in her individual capacity.
25

9.

Defendant DOES 1 through 50 are/were agents or employees employed at the Kern

26 Valley State Prison who are/were, at all times relevant herein, acting under the color of state law.
27 The true and correct names of DOES 1 through 50 are not now known to Plaintiff who sues such
28
2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 3 of 11

1 Defendants by their fictitious names. Plaintiff intends to substitute the true and correct names of
2 said Defendants when the same are ascertained.
3
4

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10.

MELENDEZ was, at all relevant times herein, a prisoner housed at the Kern Valley

5 State Prison (“KVSP”) located in Delano, California.
6

11.

MELENDEZ is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a person suffering from throat

7 cancer and type 2 diabetes. MELENDEZ’s diabetes requires that he have access to water and
8 glucose/sugar on a regular basis, to prevent diabetes-related symptoms and potentially a diabetes9 induced coma. KVSP correctional officers, including HUNT, ARRIOLA, and CRUZ, were aware
10 that MELENDEZ suffered from diabetes-related symptoms without access to water and
11 glucose/sugar.
12

12.

Prior to the allegations alleged herein, MELENDEZ suffered a stroke which

13 severely and permanently affected movement on the entire right side of his body. MELENDEZ has
14 been confined to a wheelchair since he suffered the stroke.
15

13.

On June 27, 2012, MELENDEZ underwent dialysis, a kidney treatment.

16 MELENDEZ commonly underwent dialysis treatments at KVSP and was familiar with the
17 procedures when such treatments were provided.
18

14.

MELENDEZ was being assisted by registered nurse Kelly (“Kelly”) and dialysis

19 technician Joan (“Joan”) as they prepared MELENDEZ for his dialysis treatment. Kelly noted to
20 Joan that MELENDEZ should be situated in the middle chair for his dialysis treatment, as opposed
21 to the side chairs, because “He [MELENDEZ] is claustrophobic.” HUNT was present in the room
22 and heard Kelly’s comment regarding MELENDEZ’s claustrophobia. MELENDEZ does suffer
23 from claustrophobia onset by confinement in tight, closed-in spaces.
24

15.

MELENDEZ underwent approximately three and one-half hours of dialysis

25 treatment.
26

16.

During the dialysis treatment, Kelly and Joan provided MELENDEZ with water

27 and small pieces of candy to prevent MELENDEZ from experiencing diabetes-related symptoms.
28
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 4 of 11

1

17.

When MELENDEZ’s dialysis treatment concluded, HUNT was summoned back to

2 the room in order to push MELENDEZ’s wheelchair back to his cell.
3

18.

In HUNT’s presence, Kelly observed that the ankle chains around MELENDEZ’s

4 ankles appeared to be tighter than necessary and were cutting into MELENDEZ’s ankles. Kelly
5 asked HUNT “Don’t you think those are too tight?” HUNT became irritated by Kelly’s
6 observation and left the room. HUNT returned to the room when it was time to take MELENDEZ
7 away from the dialysis treatment room.
8

19.

As HUNT pushed MELENDEZ’s wheelchair, he told MELENDEZ “I got

9 something for you.”
10

20.

Rather than placing MELDENDEZ in the “tank,” a large holding cell that easily

11 accommodated MELENDEZ’s wheelchair where MELENDEZ was always placed following
12 dialysis treatmewnts, HUNT placed MELENDEZ and his wheelchair in the “cage,” a particularly
13 small cell which barely fit MELENDEZ and his wheelchair, for the sole purpose of inducing
14 MELENDEZ’s claustrophobia.
15

21.

HUNT then squeezed both ankle chains tighter around MELENDEZ’s ankles,

16 breaking the skin and causing him to bleed. MELENDEZ cried out in pain and asked HUNT what
17 he was doing. HUNT ignored MELENDEZ, locked the cage, and left the room.
18

22.

HUNT returned to the correctional officers’ station located immediately outside of

19 the door from where MELENDEZ was locked in the cage.
20

23.

At that point in time, MELENDEZ had gone approximately an hour without a drink

21 of water or glucose/sugar. MELENDEZ began to experience symptoms of his unattended diabetic
22 condition, profusely sweating and shaking. MELENDEZ became distressed and feared that he
23 would suffer a diabetic coma without immediate medical attention.
24

24.

MELENDEZ began to yell for the help of the correctional officers, who

25 MELENDEZ could hear talking on the other side of the room’s door. In response to
26 MELENDEZ’s pleas for help with his medical condition, MELENDEZ could hear HUNT,
27 ARRIOLA, and CRUZ laughing from the correctional officers’ station and they continued to
28 ignored MELENDEZ, leaving him calling for help from the cage.
4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 5 of 11

1

25.

After approximately five minutes of MELENDEZ calling for help from inside of

2 the cage, Associate Warden Blanco (“Blanco”) entered the room. Blanco asked MELENDEZ why
3 he was inside of the cage and, noting that MELENDEZ’s sweating and shaking, asked
4 MELENDEZ what was wrong. MELENDEZ responded that HUNT had put him there and that he
5 was experiencing a diabetic reaction and needed immediate medical assistance. Blanco quickly left
6 the room and summoned medical assistance.
7

26.

Senior registered nurse Cabrera (“Cabrera”) entered the room and observed that

8 MELENDEZ was experiencing a diabetic reaction and directed a nearby correctional officer to
9 open the cage and immediately call a nurse to provide treatment for MELENDEZ.
10

27.

As the correctional officer began to unlock the cage to move MELENDEZ, HUNT

11 instructed the correctional officer not to remove MELENDEZ from the cage. The correctional
12 officer ignored HUNT, removed MELENDEZ from the cage, and pushed MELENDEZ’s
13 wheelchair to his cell where they were met by registered nurse Jennifer German (“German”).
14

28.

German immediately provided MELENDEZ with water and a sugar/glucose tube,

15 and cleaned away the blood, disinfected and wrapped the open wounds on MELENDEZ’s injured
16 ankles. Referring to the cuts on MELENDEZ’s ankles, German asked “Who did this to you?”
17 German completed a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Form 7219
18 (Medical Report of Injury or Unusual Occurrence), documenting MELENDEZ’s injuries.
19

29.

MELENDEZ filed a grievance/appeal, which was ultimately rejected because the

20 conduct of the correctional officers involved was deemed to be “within policy.”
21

FIRST CLAIM

22

Excessive Force

23

(Eighth & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

24

Against Defendants HUNT and DOES 1 through 50

25

30.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the allegations of each and every preceding

26 paragraph of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.
27

31.

HUNT, acting under color of state law, unreasonably employed excessive force

28 when he tightened MELENDEZ’s ankle chains, cutting him and causing him to bleed. The severity
5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 6 of 11

1 of the injury was so great that MELENDEZ still has prominent scares around both ankles where
2 the chains cut into both of his legs, nearly a year after the incident. HUNT’s use of excessive force,
3 the decision to tighten MELENDEZ’s ankle chains, was not motivated by a good-faith effort to
4 maintain or restore discipline, but was instead a malicious and sadistic act performed by HUNT for
5 the sole purpose of causing MELEDENZ harm.
6

32.

As a direct and proximate result of HUNT’s intentional, deliberate, and

7 unreasonable conduct, which was motivated by evil motive or intent, or involved reckless or
8 callous indifference to MELENDEZ federally protected rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
9 Amendments, MELENDEZ suffered injuries entitling him to receive compensatory and punitive
10 damages against HUNT.
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.

12

SECOND CLAIM

13

Inhumane Conditions of Confinement

14

(Eighth & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

15

Against Defendants HUNT and DOES 1 through 50

16

33.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the allegations of each and every preceding

17 paragraph of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.
18

34.

HUNT, acting under color of state law, and in violation of contemporary standards

19 of decency, locked MELENDEZ in the cage for the sole purpose of a wanton and unnecessary
20 infliction of pain on MELENDEZ. HUNT knew that MELENDEZ was claustrophobic and, rather
21 than placing MELENDEZ in the larger tank, the regular course of action readily available to
22 HUNT, HUNT chose to lock MELENDEZ in the small cage for no legitimate penological purpose.
23

35.

As a direct and proximate result of HUNT’s intentional, deliberate, and

24 unreasonable conduct, which was motivated by evil motive or intent, or involved reckless or
25 callous indifference to MELENDEZ federally protected rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
26 Amendments, MELENDEZ suffered injuries entitling him to receive compensatory and punitive
27 damages against HUNT.
28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.
6
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 7 of 11

1

THIRD CLAIM

2

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

3

(Eighth & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

4

Against Defendant HUNT and DOES 1 through 50

5

36.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the allegations of each and every preceding

6 paragraph of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.
7

37.

At the time of the incident, MELENDEZ was suffering from a serious medical

8 condition, and the lack of water or sugar/glucose ingested by MELENDEZ placed him in danger of
9 experiencing a diabetes-induced coma, a significant injury. HUNT, acting under color of state law,
10 was aware of MELENDEZ’s serious medical need and was deliberately indifferent towards that
11 need when HUNT confined MELENDEZ in the cage, left the room, and ignored MELENDEZ as
12 he called out in distress as he was experiencing a diabetic reaction.
13

38.

As a direct and proximate result of HUNT’s intentional, deliberate, and

14 unreasonable conduct, which was motivated by evil motive or intent, or involved reckless or
15 callous indifference to MELENDEZ federally protected rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
16 Amendments, MELENDEZ suffered injuries entitling him to receive compensatory and punitive
17 damages against HUNT.
18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.

19

FOURTH CLAIM

20

Failure to Intercede

21

(Eighth & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

22

Against Defendants ARRIOLA, CRUZ, and DOES 1 through 50

23

39.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the allegations of each and every preceding

24 paragraph of this Complaint, to the extent relevant, as if fully set forth herein.
25

40.

ARRIOLA and CRUZ, acting under color of state law, heard MELENDEZ in

26 distress, calling for help due to the diabetic reaction he was experiencing. ARRIOLA and CRUZ
27 were aware of MELENDEZ’s serious medical need and were deliberately indifferent towards that
28 need when they ignored MELENDEZ’s pleas for help, instead choosing to laugh with HUNT at
7
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 8 of 11

1 the plight MELENDEZ was experiencing. ARRIOLA and CRUZ had a duty to intercede when
2 their fellow correctional officer, HUNT, was violating MELENDEZ’s constitutional rights.
3 ARRIOLA and CRUZ’s passive response to the violation of MELENDEZ’s constitutional rights
4 by HUNT makes ARRIOLA and CRUZ liable, like HUNT, for subjecting MELENDEZ to a
5 deprivation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
6

41.

As a direct and proximate result of ARRIOLA and CRUZ’s intentional, deliberate,

7 and unreasonable conduct, which was motivated by evil motive or intent, or involved reckless or
8 callous indifference to MELENDEZ federally protected rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
9 Amendments, MELENDEZ suffered injuries entitling him to receive compensatory and punitive
10 damages against ARRIOLA and CRUZ.
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereunder appears.

12

PRAYER

13

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court as follows:

14

1.

For compensatory, general, and special damages in an amount according to proof;

15

2.

For exemplary/punitive damages against HUNT, ARRIOLA, and CRUZ, in an

16 amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of them, because HUNT, ARRIOLA, and
17 CRUZ engaged in purposeful conduct, as alleged, motivated by evil motive or intent, or involving
18 reckless or callous indifference to MELENDEZ federally protected rights under the Eighth and
19 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
20

3.

For attorney’s fees as provided by law (if any), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and

21 any other statute as may be applicable;
22

4.

For costs of suit; and

23

5.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

24
25
26
27
28
8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 9 of 11

1 DATED: June 5, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

2
3
4
5

By:_______________________________
Paul H. Masuhara

6
7

Limited Purpose Counsel for
Drafting the Second Amended Complaint

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

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 10 of 11

1

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

2

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED on behalf of Plaintiff CAYETANO MELENDEZ.

3 DATED: June 5, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

4
5
6
7

By:_______________________________
Paul H. Masuhara

8
9

Limited Purpose Counsel for
Drafting the Second Amended Complaint

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

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)

Case 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM Document 15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 11 of 11

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on the 5th day of June, 2014, I served the SECOND AMENDED

3
4
5

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL upon the Plaintiff via first class U.S. mail at the address listed
below:

Cayetano Melendez, D96382
6 California Health Care Facility
P.O. Box 32200 (Facility C)
7 Stockton, California 95213
8
9
10
11

In Propria Persona

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
Declaration was executed on June 5, 2014, at Sacramento, California.

/s/ Paul H. Masuhara
______________________________
Paul H. Masuhara

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Melendez v. Hunt; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:13-cv-00279-AWI-BAM (PC)