Spears et al v. El Dorado County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 38

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/04/21 ORDERING service is appropriate for defendants El Dorado County, Armstrong, Handy, Garcia and EDCJ Dentist Jane Doe. The clerk of court is directed to send plaintiff 1 summons, instruction sheet, 5 USM-285 forms and a copy of the second amended complaint to be completed and returned with the notice of submission of documents within 30 days. Also, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's claims 3, 8 and 10 be dismissed without further leave to amend. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 30 days.(Plummer, M)

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRIAN SPEARS,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0165 MCE AC P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER and

EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

15
16

I.

Introduction

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights

18

action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, which challenges conditions of plaintiff’s confinement

19

at the El Dorado County Jail (EDCJ) while a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff, who is African

20

American, is currently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. Pending before the court is

21

plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 33, which the court now screens

22

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This action is referred to the undersigned United States

23

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the reasons

24

set forth below, the court directs plaintiff to submit the information necessary for the United

25

States Marshal to serve process on defendants El Dorado County, EDCJ Sergeant Armstrong,

26

EDCJ Officers Handy and Garcia, and the EDCJ dentist (currently identified as Jane Doe). In

27

addition, the court recommends the dismissal of plaintiff’s Claims Three, Eight and Ten without

28

leave to amend.
1

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 8
1

II.

2

Plaintiff initially sought to pursue his claims jointly with three other jail inmates. The

Background

3

actions were severed but related and each inmate was directed to pursue his own claims. Of the

4

four related cases, only the instant case proceeds.1

5

By order filed March 5, 2019, this court screened plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

6

(FAC) and found that three of his claims were cognizable as framed: Claim Seven (cell

7

searches), Claim Nine (dental care) and Claim Eleven (legal mail). See ECF No. 28. The court

8

provided plaintiff the option of proceeding on those claims with this FAC or submitting a

9

proposed Second Amended Complaint (SAC) that included his cognizable claims and adequately

10

amended his deficient claims, specifically Claim Three (food), Claim Four (sleep), Claim Six

11

(grooming), Claim Eight (medical care/back injury), and Claim Ten (medical care/prescribed

12

treatments). At the same time, the undersigned recommended the dismissal of plaintiff’s Claim

13

One (putative class action failure to protect claim alleging EDCJ failed to protect protective

14

custody (PC) inmates from general population (GP) inmates); Claim Two (putative class action

15

claim challenging the quality of inmate medical care); Claim Five (putative class action claim

16

alleging discrimination against PC inmates); and plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief against El

17

Dorado County because plaintiff is no longer incarcerated there. Id. These recommendations

18

were adopted by the district judge on June 14, 2019, dismissing Claims One, Two and Five, and

19

plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief. ECF No. 34.

20

Plaintiff opted to proceed with a proposed SAC. ECF No. 33. The SAC retains the same

21

identification of claims as set forth in the FAC, expressly “removing” Claims One, Two and Five

22

while retaining them as placeholders. Id. at 12, 17. Plaintiff explains that he has done so to

23

“make navigating this complaint more efficient.” ECF No. 33 at 12.2 In support of the remaining

24

claims plaintiff has refined his allegations.

25
26
27
28

1

The other three related cases were closed without reaching the merits of the claims. See Case
Nos. 2:15-cv-00772, 2:15-cv-00773 and 2:15-cv-00774.
2
Cited page numbers reflect the court’s electronic pagination of the SAC, not the internal
pagination of the complaint.
2

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 8
1

III.

2

Screening of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
A.

3

Legal Standards

As the undersigned previously informed plaintiff, this court is required to screen

4

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or

5

employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a

6

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or

7

malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

8

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

9

legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

10

U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).

11

In addition, a pretrial detainee’s challenges to the conditions of his or her confinement is

12

evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and assessed under an

13

objective reasonability standard. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir.

14

2018) (en banc) (citing Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2016)

15

(en banc)), cert. denied sub nom. County of Orange v. Gordon, 2019 WL 113108 (U.S. Jan. 7,

16

2019).

17

The undersigned previously informed plaintiff of the pertinent legal standards governing

18

each of his claims and, where appropriate, the deficiencies in his prior allegations. See generally

19

ECF No. 28. The court does not repeat those standards here unless necessary to explain a ruling.

20
21
22
23

B.

Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required

The allegations of the SAC are sufficient for plaintiff to proceed on the following claims
against the following defendants:
Claim Four: Plaintiff’s allegations describing the many routine jail practices that deny

24

inmates continuous sleep at night, coupled with the headaches, memory loss, memory lapses and

25

possible exacerbation of his heart condition and sleep apnea that plaintiff alleges he suffered as a

26

result, see ECF No. 33 at 14-7 (see also id. at 26-31) are sufficient to state a Fourteenth

27

Amendment conditions of confinement claim. “The mere lack of due care by a state official does

28

not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the
3

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 8
1

plaintiff must prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent – something akin to

2

reckless disregard.” Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125 (citations, internal quotation marks and fn.

3

omitted). Under “Monell,”3 this claim is properly brought against El Dorado County based on

4

their pertinent policies and practices concerning routine nighttime disturbances, as previously

5

recounted by the court. See ECF No. 28 at 10-1.

6

Claim Six: For the reasons previously stated by this court, ECF No. 28 at 13-4, and based

7

on plaintiff’s refined allegations, ECF No. 33 at 17-9, plaintiff may proceed on his equal

8

protection claim against EDCJ Sergeant Armstrong on the ground she intentionally deprived

9

plaintiff of regular grooming appointments and personal access to clippers at least in part because

10

plaintiff is African American.

11

Claim Seven: For the reasons previously stated by this court, plaintiff may proceed on his

12

equal protection claims against EDCJ Officers Handy and Garcia based their alleged racial

13

discrimination against plaintiff in conducting cell searches. See ECF No. 28 at 14-5.

14

Claim Nine: For the reasons previously stated by this court, plaintiff may proceed on his

15

denial of dental care and racial discrimination claims against the EDCJ Dentist at the relevant

16

time (hereafter “Jane Doe”).4 See ECF No. 28 at 17-8.

17
18

Claim Eleven: For the reasons previously stated by this court, plaintiff may proceed on
his First and Sixth Amendment “Monell claims” against El Dorado County based on their policy

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 694-95 (1978) (Section 1983
claim against a local governmental entity requires allegations that a specific policy, custom, or
practice of the entity was the “moving force” behind plaintiff’s alleged constitutional
deprivation). “[A] municipality is liable under Monell only if a municipal policy or custom was
the moving force behind the constitutional violation. In other words, there must be a direct causal
link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Villegas
v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
4
Plaintiff should promptly seek the identity of Jane Doe from El Dorado County and/or the
EDCJ, and/or pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250 et seq., or
by other means available to plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or
unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention. Although “Doe” pleading is
disfavored in the federal courts, Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980),
amendment is allowed to substitute the true name of fictitiously named defendants, Merritt v.
County of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1989).
4

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 8
1

of opening clearly marked “legal mail” outside the presence of pretrial detainees.

2
3
4
5

C.

Failure to State a Claim

As earlier noted, plaintiff’s Claims One, Two, and Five have already been dismissed from
this action.
Claim Three: For the reasons previously stated by the court, see ECF No. 28 at 9-10,

6

plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim based on the quality of the food

7

provided at EDCJ. See SAC, ECF No. 33 at 12-4. Amendment has not cured the previously

8

identified deficiency. Plaintiff’s allegation that during the course of a year he gained 35 pounds

9

and became prediabetic due to the inadequate and “fatty salty” food remains too vague to

10

demonstrate that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the objectively unreasonable conduct of a

11

specific defendant or the implementation of a specific EDCJ policy, custom or practice.

12

Claim Eight: For the reasons previously stated by the court, see ECF No. 28 at 15-7,

13

plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim premised on inadequate medical

14

care and the refusal of EDCJ medical staff to provide plaintiff with a cane. Amendment has not

15

cured the previously identified deficiency. See SAC, ECF No. 33 at 12-4. Plaintiff’s allegation

16

that he was told “by a jail staff member . . . that the nurse did not want to give Spears a cane

17

because he was black” is also insufficient to state a cognizable equal protection claim.

18

Claim Ten: For the reasons previously stated by the court, see ECF No. 28 at 18-9,

19

plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim premised on the denial of

20

adequate medical care. Amendment has not cured the previously identified deficiency. See SAC,

21

ECF No. 33 at 26-32. Plaintiff concedes that the types of medications he was prescribed and

22

when they were administered, as well as the frequency of his blood tests, had to be decided in the

23

first instance by EDCJ physician Dr. Lee. Id. at 29. Plaintiff’s allegations that EDCJ Medical

24

Manager Nurse Isaacson and Charge Nurse Bianchi sought to punish or retaliate against plaintiff,

25

id. at 28, 30, are not relevant under the Fourteen Amendment’s objective standard. See Gordon,

26

888 F.3d at 1124-25. The fact that plaintiff may have been prescribed other, more expensive (and

27

even more effective) medications by outside physicians does not in itself render the decisions

28

made by jail medical staff unreasonable. The same is true for plaintiff’s orthopedic shoes, which
5

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 8
1

his family ultimately provided. ECF No. 33 at 28. As to the CPAP machine, plaintiff alleges

2

only that he had used one prior to his incarceration, id. at 31, which is insufficient to demonstrate

3

that one was medically necessary during his incarceration or that failure to provide one violated

4

his rights.

5

D.

Further Leave to Amend Would Be Futile

6

A pro se litigant should be provided an opportunity to amend, unless amendment would be

7

futile. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, plaintiff has already been

8

provided an opportunity to amend Claims Three, Eight, and Ten, and has been informed of the

9

standards for successfully pleading his claims. Plaintiff’s continued failure to allege facts

10

sufficient to state a claim for relief indicates that no such facts are available. Accordingly, further

11

leave to amend is not appropriate.

12

IV.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court has screened and found service of the

Conclusion

15

Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33) appropriate against the following defendants on the

16

following claims:

17

a. Fourteenth Amendment denial of due process Monell claim against El

18

Dorado County based on its policies and practices resulting in the frequent waking of

19

prisoners at night (Claim Four).

20

b. Fourteenth Amendment denial of equal protection based on racial

21

animus against EDCJ Sergeant Armstrong (Claim Six) based on depriving plaintiff of

22

regular grooming appointments and implements.

23

c. Fourteenth Amendment denial of equal protection based on racial

24

animus against EDCJ Officers Handy and Garcia based on their frequent and destructive

25

searches of plaintiff’s cell (Claim Seven).

26

d. Fourteenth Amendment denial of adequate dental care and equal

27

protection claims against the EDCJ Dentist (Jane Doe) based on racial animus (Claim

28

Nine).
6

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 8
1

e. First and Sixth Amendment Monell claims against El Dorado County

2

based on its policy of opening clearly marked “legal mail” outside the presence of pretrial

3

detainees (Claim Eleven).

4

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff one summons, five USM-285 forms.

5

a copy of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33), and an instruction sheet

6

informing plaintiff how to proceed in completing and submitting the necessary service

7

documents.

8
9

3. Within thirty (30) days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the
attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

10

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

11

b. One completed summons;

12

c. Five completed USM-285 forms (one for each defendant);5 and

13

d. Six copies of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 33)6

14
15

Further, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s
Claims Three, Eight and Ten be dismissed without further leave to amend.

16

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

17

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

18

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

19

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

20

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

21

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

22

(9th Cir. 1991).

23

DATED: January 4, 2021

24
25
26
27
28

5

Plaintiff is required to promptly obtain the identity of Jane Doe and seek leave of court to
substitute the EDCJ dentist’s actual name. See n.4, supra.
6
The United States Marshal will retain one copy of the Second Amended Complaint.
7

Case 2:15-cv-00165-MCE-AC Document 38 Filed 01/04/21 Page 8 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN SPEARS,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:15-cv-0165 MCE AC P
Plaintiff,

v.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF
DOCUMENTS

EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order filed
_____________________:

19
20
21

____

One completed summons form

____

Five completed USM-285 forms

22
23
24
25

____________________________________
Date

____________________________________
Plaintiff

26
27
28
1