Stratford v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 20

SCREENING ORDER that Plaintiff (1) Notify the Court that he is Willing to Proceed only on the Claim Sanctioned by this Order and Voluntarily Dismiss all Other Claims and Defendants; or (2) Notify the Court that he Wishes to Stand on his Complaint, Subject to Dismissal of Claims and Defendants Consistent with this Order signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 10/11/2019.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC STRATFORD,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,

16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22

SCREENING ORDER
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF:

14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-00766-JDP

(1) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE IS
WILLING TO PROCEED ONLY ON
THE CLAIM SANCTIONED BY
THIS ORDER AND VOLUNTARILY
DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS;
OR
(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE
WISHES TO STAND ON HIS
COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO
DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH
THIS ORDER
ECF No. 17

23
24
25

Plaintiff Eric Stratford is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil
rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 17,

26
27
28

1

While plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed his initial complaint, he no longer appears in
California’s inmate directory and lists his current address as a resident in Los Angeles. See ECF
No. 19.
1

1

is before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. I find that plaintiff has stated an

2

Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Schwarzenegger, but no other claims. Plaintiff must

3

choose between (1) proceeding only on the claims against Schwarzenegger and voluntarily

4

dismissing other claims and defendants; and (2) standing on the current complaint subject to

5

dismissal of claims and defendants consistent with this order.2

6

I.

SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

7

A district court is required to screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief against a

8

governmental entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify

9

any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails

10

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who

11

is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

12

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

14

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not

15

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

16

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

17

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not

18

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,

19

1038 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011)). Instead, what

20

plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to

21

relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)

22

(citations omitted).

23
24
Plaintiff’s initial complaint was screened in 2017, and plaintiff was put on notice of pleading
deficiencies similar to those identified in this order. See ECF No. 9 at 4 (“Plaintiff[‘s] complaint
includes no facts indicating what he believes each Defendant personally did or failed to do to
violate his rights.”). Because Stratford has already been notified of the defects in his pleading
and had an opportunity to amend, I do not offer additional leave to amend, as I do not believe the
deficiencies can be cured by amendment. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228 & n.9
(9th Cir. 1984).
2
2

25
26
27
28

1

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

2

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint only “if it

3

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which

4

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017)

5

(quoting Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)).
THE COMPLAINT3

6

II.

7

Plaintiff names eleven defendants: the California Department of Corrections and

8

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); California Governor Jerry Brown; California Governor Arnold

9

Schwarzenegger; Susan Hubbard, director of adult prisons; CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate;

10

CDCR unit chief Tanya Rothchild; CDCR executive secretary Deborah Hysen; CDCR medical

11

officer Dwight Winslow; James A. Yates, warden of the Pleasant Valley State Prison; and Dr.

12

Felix Igbinosa, a medical officer at Pleasant Valley. ECF No. 17 at 3-4. Plaintiff alleges that he

13

contracted valley fever in December 2007 and has, as a result, suffered a variety of injuries in

14

violation the Eighth Amendment. Stratford alleges that valley fever spores entered his right lung

15

and that he now suffers from pneumonia-like symptoms and anxiety related to his condition. See

16

id. at 11. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. See id. at 22-23.

17

III.

18

DISCUSSION
A. Threshold Requirements Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

Section 1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a right secured by

20

federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 916 (2017). To

21

state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a “person,” while acting under color of

22

state law, personally participated in the deprivation of a right secured by federal law. See Soo

23

Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 2017). A defendant personally participates in a

24

deprivation “if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to

25

perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is

26

made.” Atayde v. Napa State Hosp., 255 F. Supp. 3d 978, 988 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting Lacey v.

27
28

3

The court draws the facts of this section from plaintiff’s amended complaint and accepts them as
true for purposes of screening.
3

1

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915 (9th Cir. 2012)). Vague and conclusory allegations of

2

personal involvement in an alleged deprivation do not suffice. Id.

3

Plaintiff’s complaint does not adequately link the acts or omissions of most named

4

defendants to the harm he claims to have suffered. Most of the defendants are either unmentioned

5

or mentioned only in passing in Straford’s description of relevant events. Leaving defendants

6

unmentioned—or mentioning them only glancingly to note that they “were aware, or should have

7

been aware” of increased valley fever risks, see, for example, ECF No. 17 at 10 and 17—is

8

insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1228

9

(9th Cir. 2019) (noting, in the context of valley fever claims under § 1983, that “inmates must

10

show that each defendant personally played a role in violating the Constitution” (emphasis

11

added)). In addition, the CDCR is not a “person” for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not

12

subject to this suit. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990); Coleman v. California Dep’t

13

of Corr. & Rehab., No. 06-2606, 2009 WL 648987, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009) (“There is no

14

dispute that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is a state agency. As

15

such, it is not amenable to suit under § 1983.”).

16

Stratford’s complaint does satisfy the threshold requirements for one defendant: Governor

17

Schwarzenegger. Stratford’s complaint contains sufficiently detailed allegations of Governor

18

Schwarzenegger’s acts and omissions such that they can be linked the deprivation of a right.

19

Several recent cases, while ultimately concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified

20

immunity, have proceeded on a similar threshold theory. See Hines, 914 F.3d 1218; Smith v.

21

Schwarzenegger, 137 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (E.D. Cal. 2015).

22

B. Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference

23

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

24

officials from wantonly exposing prisoners to certain objectively serious deprivations and safety

25

risks. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To establish a violation of this right, a

26

prisoner must show that officials were “deliberately indifferent” to a serious safety threat.

27

Here, accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, I find that he has stated an Eighth

28

Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Governor Schwarzenegger. Stratford alleges,
4

1

among other things, that Governor Schwarzenegger received a 2005 informational briefing about

2

the risks of valley fever but failed to act on it, ECF No. 17 at 3-B; that the Governor proposed

3

constructing new dormitories at Pleasant Valley and stated that he was “not concerned” about the

4

risk of valley fever there, id. at 3-D; and that the Governor acknowledged the much higher rate of

5

infections at Pleasant Valley but failed to take steps to ameliorate it, id. at 3-A.

6

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

7

I have screened plaintiff’s complaint and conclude that he has stated an Eighth

8

Amendment claim against defendant Schwarzenegger. He has stated no other claims. In light of

9

this conclusion and the law cited above, plaintiff must choose between (1) proceeding only on the

10

Eighth Amendment claim against Schwarzenegger and voluntarily dismissing the other claims

11

and defendants, and (2) standing on the current complaint subject to dismissal of claims and

12

defendants consistent with this order.

13

Accordingly,

14

1.

15

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must either:
a. Notify the court in writing that he is willing to proceed only on the Eighth

16

Amendment claim against defendant Schwarzenegger, voluntarily dismissing

17

all other claims and defendants CDCR, Brown, Hubbard, Cate, Rothchild,

18

Hysen, Winslow, Yates, and Igbinosa;

19

b. Notify the court in writing that he does not agree to go forward on only the

20

claim found cognizable by this order, in which case I will recommend the

21

dismissal of claims and defendants consistent with this order.

22

2.

Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

October 11, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
5