Victor D. Jackson v. CDCR CAL-PIA Supervisors

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/07/15. Referred to Judge Ishii. Fourteen-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

VICTOR D. JACKSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
CDCR CAL-PIA SUPERVISORS,

13

Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-00409-AWI-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16
Findings and Recommendations
17
I.

Screening Requirement and Standard

18
Plaintiff Victor D. Jackson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on March 16,

20
2015, is currently before the Court for screening.
21
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
22
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
23

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

24
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
25
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28
26
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
27
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

While prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their

10

pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, the pleading standard

11

is now higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and to

12

survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual

13

detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the

14

misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v.

15

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a

16

defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of

17

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks

18

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations

19

II.

20

Plaintiff is housed at California State Prison, Corcoran. He names the CDCR CAL-PIA

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Supervisors as defendants in this action. Plaintiff alleges as follows:
On 7, 28, 2014, I was given a juice for breakf[a]st. After I opened it up and begin
to drink, I noticed something in the bottom of the carton. I pour the rest of the
juice out to recognize what it was. [I]t look like a rodent fece[]s, a mouse, infused
into the wax coating of the corner of the carton about a ½ inch long. I begin to
suffer physical and mental dam[]ages immediately. I hold CDCR CAL-PIA
Supervisors responsible, it is “there” [sic] product). I don’t know name[]s or just
how they oversee there [sic] product and worker[]s or exactly how the negligence
occurred. I know this happen[e]d to me. . I still have the carton, and I have asked
that it be tested in every lev[e]l of my Appeal. And it has been denied. Why?
Why wont [sic] CDCR CAL-PIA test it, since it is not what I say it is, to them.,
there shouldn[t] be “anything” in the juice carton but juice..they say that it is pulp
2

1

3

and refuse to test it, in level[s] one and two of my appeal, I am waiting on third
level response now. I will send it to the courts..they say that it is pulp and refuse
to test. There is “NO” way for this to be pulp, it was done before[e] juice was
added to the carton. .

4

(ECF No. 1, pp. 3-5.) Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in compensatory damages for the alleged violation

5

of his Eighth Amendment rights.

2

6

III.

Discussion

7

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

8

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

9

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v.

10

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), and Rhodes v. Chapman,

11

452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). Prison

12

officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care and

13

personal safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832.

14

“Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the Eighth Amendment.” Keenan v.

15

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.1996). “The Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners

16

receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing.”

17

LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir.1993). Furthermore, “[t]he fact that the food

18

occasionally contains foreign objects or sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not

19

amount to a constitutional deprivation.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Islam v. Jackson, 782

20

F.Supp. 1111, 1114 (E.D. Va. 1992) (prisoner served contaminated food on one occasion was not

21

a sufficiently serious deprivation); cf. George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A]

22

single incident of unintended food poisoning, whether suffered by one or many prisoners at an

23

institution, does not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights of the affected prisoners”).

24

However, the Ninth Circuit has found that “[t]he sustained deprivation of food can be cruel and

25

unusual punishment when it results in pain without any penological purpose.” Foster v. Runnels,

26

554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir.2009) (finding the denial of sixteen meals in twenty-three days a

27

sufficiently serious deprivation for Eighth Amendment purposes).

28
3

1

Here, Plaintiff has identified an isolated incident of a foreign object in his food, not a

2

sustained deprivation. Service of one contaminated juice carton does not rise to a constitutional

3

violation. This deficiency does not appear capable of being cured by amendment and further

4

leave to amend is not warranted. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).

5

IV.

6

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

7

Conclusion and Recommendation

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 7, 2015

18

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4