Mendez v. Yates. et al.
Filing
8
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/1/2016. First Amended Complaint due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
GUILLERMO E. MENDEZ,
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:15-cv-00781-BAM (PC)
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
15
16
Plaintiff Guillermo E. Mendez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint,
18
filed on May 22, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. 1).
19
Screening Requirement
20
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
21
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
22
1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
23
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
24
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28
25
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
26
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
27
pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
28
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
1
1
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
2
1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
3
(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge
4
unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
5
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
6
To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
7
sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
8
for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted);
9
Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility
10
that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
11
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks
12
omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
13
Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations
14
Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster,
15
California. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed
16
at Pleasant Valley State Prison.
17
Governor Brown as defendants.
Plaintiff names Warden James A. Yates and California
18
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
19
25
I arrived at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, Calif on May 23, 2006 to
Facility A-yard. After 5 year’s I contracted “Valley Fever” from soil inside
prison, state leader’s, prison official’s knew prior to construction of prison
environmental impact statement soil analysis state’s contain’s valley fever.
Unhealthy for human’s if soil’s disturbed. The prison was still built sending
thousand’s of inmate’s to this prison including myself. I have this deadly disease
for life, taken medication to control spread of it from my lung’s to other area’s of
body! This is cruel and unusual treatment, violating my civil right’s. I came to
prison to do my time not to get a disease from prison property. Nor was I given
the death penalty. This can happen! I’am also asking court to give me an
extension form 2-15 to present day.
26
(Doc. 1 at p. 3) (unedited text). As relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of
27
$4 million dollars, lifetime medical coverage, funeral expenses upon death, court expenses and
20
21
22
23
24
28
2
1
punitive damages. Plaintiff also states that he need an extension from 2-15 to the present due to
2
exhaustion of remedies with appeals exceeding the statute of limitations.
3
Discussion
4
1. Linkage Requirement
5
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
6
8
Every person who, under color of [state law]...subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution...shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
9
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between
10
the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See
11
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978);
12
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed. 2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held
13
that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning
14
of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits
15
to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which
16
complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
7
17
Plaintiff has failed to link Defendants Yates and Brown to any constitutional violation.
18
Plaintiff does not identify any individual defendant in the allegations of his complaint and he
19
does not attribute any specific conduct to the named defendants. If Plaintiff elects to amend his
20
complaint, then he must state what each person did or did not do that caused the alleged
21
violation(s) of his constitutional rights.
22
2. Supervisory Liability
23
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the Warden and Governor liable based solely upon
24
their supervisory roles, he may not do so.
Liability may not be imposed on supervisory
25
personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat
26
superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676–77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020–21
27
(9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v.
28
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “A supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is
3
1
personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection
2
between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Crowley v.
3
Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted); accord
4
Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey
5
v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “Under the latter theory,
6
supervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if
7
supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of
8
constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at
9
977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks
10
omitted).
11
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants Yates and Brown were personally involved in
12
any constitutional deprivation. Further, Plaintiff fails to identify any policy sufficient to impose
13
liability against Defendants Yates and Brown. There is no indication that either of these officials
14
were responsible for building of Pleasant Valley State Prison or for Plaintiff’s placement there in
15
violation of any constitutional rights.
16
3. Eighth Amendment
17
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to bring suit alleging a violation of his Eighth
18
Amendment rights due to his placement at a prison in an area where Valley Fever is present, he
19
has fails to state a cognizable federal claim. To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in
20
violation of the Eight Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary
21
infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim does not
22
rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the
23
prisoner of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,’ ” and (2) “the prison official
24
‘acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.’ ” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th
25
Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A
26
prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and
27
disregards and excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
28
(1994).
4
1
Until recently, courts in this district have found that mere confinement in a location
2
where Valley Fever is prevalent fails to pose an excessive risk of harm. Jones v. Hartley, No.
3
1:13-cv-01590-AWI-GSA-PC, 2015 WL 1276708, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (“no courts
4
have found that exposure to valley fever spores at the level experienced by the community at
5
large presents an ‘excessive risk’ to inmate health”); Williams v. CDCR, No. 1:14-cv-01912-JLT
6
(PC), 2015 WL 6669816, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2015) (“Unless there is something about a
7
prisoner’s conditions of confinement that raise the risk of exposure substantially above the risk
8
experienced by the surrounding community, it cannot be said that the prisoner is forcibly and
9
knowingly exposed to a risk the society would not tolerate to meet the objective component of a
10
claim under the Eighth Amendment.”); Montano v. Adams, No. 1:15-cv-0452 DLB PC, 2016
11
WL 310175, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (inmate cannot state a claim under the Eighth
12
Amendment based solely on the exposure to and contraction of Valley Fever); Hines v. Yousseff,
13
No. 1:13–cv–00357–AWI–JLT, 2015 WL 164215, *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) (“Unless there is
14
something about a prisoner’s conditions of confinement that raises the risk of exposure
15
substantially above the risk experienced by the surrounding communities, it cannot be reasoned
16
that the prisoner is involuntarily exposed to a risk that society would not tolerate.”); but c.f.
17
Beagle v. Schwarzenegger, 107 F.Supp.3d 1056, 1068 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (finding that mere
18
exposure to valley fever is sufficient to state a claim); Jackson v. Davey, No. 1:14-cv-1311-LJO-
19
MJS (PC), 2015 WL 3402992, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (“Plaintiff no longer needs to allege
20
particular[ ] susceptibility to Valley Fever; mere exposure is sufficient to state a claim.”).
21
Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to indicate that the risk of exposure to Valley Fever at
22
Pleasant Valley State Prison is any higher than the surrounding community. “Unless there is
23
something about a prisoner’s conditions of confinement that raises the risk of exposure
24
substantially above the risk experienced by the surrounding communities, it cannot be reasoned
25
that the prisoner is involuntarily exposed to a risk the society would not tolerate.” Hines, 2015
26
WL 164215, at *4. Therefore, merely being confined in an area in which Valley Fever spores
27
are present does not state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.
28
///
5
1
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
2
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. As Plaintiff is proceeding
3
pro se, he will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies
4
to the extent he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.
5
2000). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his
6
amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot”
7
complaints).
8
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what
9
each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal,
10
556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations
11
must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S.
12
at 555 (citations omitted).
13
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.
14
Lacey, 693 F.3d at 927. Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself
15
without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.
16
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted;
2.
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a
first amended complaint; and
3.
If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this
22
order, this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state
23
a claim.
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
November 1, 2016
27
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?