Jones v. Brown, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT and GRANTING Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/13/2014. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint)(Marrujo, C)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6
7

KAZI DANIEL JONES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Case No. 1:14 cv 00124 GSA PC

vs.

MR. BROWN, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants

11

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
IN THIRTY DAYS

12
13
14
15

16
17
18

I.

Screening Requirement
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 has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

24

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on February 14, 2014 (ECF No. 10).
1

1
2

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

4

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

5

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a

6

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s

8

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the

9

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams,

10

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not

11

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union

12

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268

13

(9th Cir. 1982)).

14

II.

15

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff brings this action against defendant correctional officials employed by the

16

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Wasco State Prison, where

17

the events at issue occurred. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Kitchen

18

Supervisor Brown; Kitchen Staff Dunlap; Kitchen Staff Armendariz; C/O Cera; Nurse

19

Practitioner Garza; Chief, Office of Appeals Lozano. Plaintiff‟s statement of claim, in its

20

entirety, follows:

21

While in Reception I volunteered to work in Wasco State Prison‟s
kitchen. The very first day of work about 5 hours in I slipped and
fell, hitting my head on a tray cart. I was taken to San Joaquin (an
outside hospital) where I received 5 staples in the back of my head.
I also received a CT scan, an MRI, and a lumbar puncture to
determine the cause of my migraine headaches, blurry vision,
dizzy spells, nausea and black-outs. I have witnesses who saw the
incident and who can testify regarding the working conditions, lack
of work gear and other useful information.

22
23
24
25
26
27

///
28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

A.

Conditions of Confinement

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and
from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.
2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and
only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life‟s necessities are
sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (citations and quotations omitted). In order to state a claim for violation of
the Eighth Amendment, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that prison
officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff alleges that he has been

12

injured, but does not specifically allege any facts indicating that each of the named defendants

13

knew of a specific harm to Plaintiff and acted with disregard to that harm. Plaintiff has not

14

charged any individual defendant with any specific conduct. Plaintiff may not hold defendants

15

liable simply by alleging that he was injured in a slip and fall. Plaintiff must allege facts

16

indicating that a dangerous condition existed, and facts that indicate each defendant knew of and

17

disregarded that condition.

18

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted

19

under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution

20

or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person

21

deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person „does an affirmative act, participates

22

in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to

23

do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978,

24

988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he

25

„requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal

26

participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the

27

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.‟”

28

3

1
2
3
4

Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with
conduct indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s health, resulting
in injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be
dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to
hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where
that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under
color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened.
Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described
by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.
III.

Conclusion and Order
The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims

13

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

14

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

15

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

16

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

17

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

18

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

19

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal

20

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must

21

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

22

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted).

23

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

24

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

25

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

26

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an

27

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d

28

4

1
2
3
4

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord
Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

5
6
7

claim;
2.

The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

8
9

an amended complaint;
4.

10

13

Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended
complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

11
12

Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a

complaint; and
5.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this
action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:

17

/s/ Gary S. Austin

18

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

November 13, 2014