Poyner v. Gonzalez

Filing 10

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this 9 Action be Dismissed for Failure to State a Cognizable Section 1983 Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/28/2015. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 5/15/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

JONATHAN POYNER,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
A. M. GONZALES,

13

Defendant.

14

1:14-cv-01585-AWI-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

15
Findings and Recommendations

16
17

I.

18

Plaintiff Jonathan Poyner (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

20

complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on April 15, 2015, is

21

currently before the Court for screening.

22

Screening Requirement and Standard

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

23

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

24

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or

25

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary

26

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

27

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

28
1

1

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

2

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

3

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

4

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

5

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65

6

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge

7

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

8

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

9

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings

10

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

11

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially

12

plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each

13

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

14

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

15

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere

16

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

17

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations

18

II.

19

Plaintiff is currently housed at Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California. The events in

20

the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran State Prison.

21

Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Correctional Officer F. Espinoza; (2) Correctional

22

Officer D. Menzie; (3) Correctional Officer G. Vidana; and (4) Correctional Lieutenant A. M.

23

Gonzales.

24

Claim 1:

25

In Claim 1, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

26

During a Ninty [sic] (90) day period defendant F. Espinoza was the 3C04 Control
Booth Officer, who failed to provide me with my 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per
week. D. Menzie, was working as 3C04 Floor Officer and refuse to allow me my
1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week. G. Vidana, was working as 3C04 Floor

27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Officer, who failed to provide me with my 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week.
A. M. Gonzales, was the Correctional lieutenant who failed to assure that I
received my 1hr of outdoor exercise 5dys per week and all of the aforementioned
defendants were aware of this clear requirement. My outdoor exercise is a right,
not a privilege that can be totally deprived without a showing of safety and
security concerns. While the law does require prison officials to restrict outdoor
exercise as a result of disciplinary action, such a restriction is limited to the 1hr of
outdoor exercise 5dys per week. I did not receive 1hr of outdoor exercise for a
full period of 90dys. As a result, I suffered medical injuries.
(ECF No. 9, pp. 3-4).

8

Claim 2:

9

In Claim 2, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Defendants F. Espinoza, D. [Menzie], G. Vidana, and A. M. Gonzales,
dprived [sic] me of a serious medical need as a result of not allowing me outdoor
exercise for a period of Ninty [sic] (90) days. Due to the denial of outdoor
exercise, I was forced to suffer from increased Asthma flare-ups and more than
usual relife [sic] from my rescue inhaler. I am a known Asthmatic to all of the
aforementioned defendants. I personally made each of the defendants aware of
my medical need for outdoor exercise as well as the Facility 3C medical doctor
Yoon Moon, who informed me that it was an issue with the custody staff. In
addition, I informed the defendants that I was starting to experience sever [sic]
muscle cramps in my back znd legas [sic] as a result of a lack of outdoor exercise.
Their response was, “we don’t care.”
(ECF No. 9, p. 4.)

18

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, along with discovery.

19

III.

20

Discussion
A. Eighth Amendment-Cruel and Unusual Punishment

21

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

22

prisoners from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041,

23

1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Deprivation of outdoor exercise by prison officials may constitute cruel

24

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082,

25

1087 (9th Cir. 1995). As a general rule, prisoners may not be deprived of regular exercise.

26

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp. 1388, 1393 (N.D. Cal. 1984), rev’d on other grounds 801

27

F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986). However, prison officials may restrict outdoor exercise on the basis

28
3

1

of weather, unusual circumstances or disciplinary needs. See Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189,

2

199 (9th Cir. 1979); LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457-58 (9th Cir. 1993).

3

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of outdoor exercise for a period of ninety

4

days. Unlike his original complaint, Plaintiff omits that the loss of yard privileges was the result

5

of a disciplinary hearing. However, the action of prison officials in restricting Plaintiff’s outdoor

6

exercise as a result of a disciplinary hearing was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See

7

Spain, 600 F.2d at 199; see also Kennedy v. Hayes, 2010 WL 5440805, *13 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28,

8

2010) (prisoner alleging loss of outdoor exercise for ninety days as a result of a disciplinary

9

hearing failed to state a claim on Eighth Amendment grounds). Further, there is no indication

10

that Plaintiff was prevented from exercising inside or outside of his cell or that he was confined

11

to his cell for a period of ninety days.
B. Eighth Amendment – Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

12
13

Plaintiff asserts that he developed breathing problems because of the loss of yard

14

privileges and that he developed muscle cramps. For a deprivation of exercise to rise to the level

15

of a constitutional violation, there must be evidence that a defendant was deliberately indifferent

16

to the Plaintiff’s needs. See May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565-66 (9th Cir. 1997); Kennedy,

17

2010 WL 5440805 at * 13. Here, Plaintiff alleges that defendants were aware of his asthma and

18

his medical need for outdoor exercise. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s assertion of medical need is

19

contradicted by allegations in the amended complaint that he spoke with the medical doctor, who

20

informed Plaintiff it was an issue with custody staff. There is no indication or allegation that the

21

medical doctor found any medical need for outdoor exercise due to Plaintiff’s asthma.

22

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his claim of muscle

23

cramps in his back and legs. As noted above, however, there is no indication that Plaintiff was

24

precluded from exercising inside or outside of his cell or that he was confined to his cell for a

25

period of ninety days with no ability to stretch, move or exercise. May, 109 F.3d at 566

26

(confining an inmate to his cell for less than 24 hours in order to encourage compliance with

27

prison security regulations does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference).

28

///
4

1

IV.

2

Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Despite being provided with the

Conclusion and Recommendation

3

relevant legal standards, it does not appear that the deficiencies are capable of being cured by

4

amendment. Therefore, further leave to amend is not warranted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

5

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

6
7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure
to state a cognizable section 1983 claim.

8

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

9

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

10

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may

11

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to

12

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

13

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the

14

magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839, (9th Cir.

15

2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 28, 2015

19

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5