(PC) Alford v. Pheiffer et al

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 8/27/2024 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismiss with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Mendez Licea, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY ALFORD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:24-CV-1290-DAD-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHRISTIAN PHEIFFER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 10.

19

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

20

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1915A(a). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was

22

initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel.

23

Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or

24

portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can

25

be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

26

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that

27

complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

28

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply,
1

1

concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice

3

of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121,

4

1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

5

overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail

6

to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening

7

required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory.

8
I. BACKGROUND

9
A.

10

Procedural History

11

Plaintiff initiated this action with a pro se complaint filed on May 3, 2024. See

12

ECF No. 1. Plaintiff named the following as defendants: (1) C. Pheiffer, (2) R. Pantoja, (3) J.

13

Lynch, (4) C. Andes, (5) Guzman, (6) Gutierrez, (7) Scott, (8) Darling, (9) Pesolia, (10) Bryden,

14

(11) Remeron, (12) Lewis, (13) Carrasco, (14) Aguilar, (15) Dr. Neal, (16) Dr. Sanchez, (17) Dr.

15

Alton, (18) Dr. Alexander, and (19) Nurse John Doe. See id. at 1, 4. Defendants are alleged to be

16

prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP). See id. On June 5, 2024, the Court issued

17

an order addressing the sufficiency of Plaintiff's complaint. See ECF No. 7. The Court

18

concluded that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against any named defendant because he did not

19

allege facts sufficient to establish a causal connection between any defendant and the claimed

20

violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights relating to medical care. See id. Plaintiff was

21

advised of the applicable legal principles and the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

22

See id.

23

B.

Plaintiff's Current Allegations

24

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff names the same 19 defendants as were

25

named in the original complaint. See ECF No. 10, pgs. 3-4. Plaintiff asserts three claims for

26

relief related to medical care arising from events occurring at KVSP on July 28, 2023.

27

///

28

///
2

1

Claim I

2

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Gutierrez came to Plaintiff's cell and ordered

3

Plaintiff to pack his property. See id. at 5. After this, Plaintiff made a noose to commit suicide.

4

See id. Later in the day, at around 6:45 p.m., Plaintiff's psychiatrist noticed the noose in hand and

5

blew her whistle. See id. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Gutierrez and Guzman responded.

6

See id. Defendant Gutierrez asked Plaintiff what the problem was, to which Plaintiff responded:

7

"I can’t live without my family." Id. Plaintiff states that Gutierrez then attempted to spray

8

Plaintiff and hit his alarm. See id. Defendants Scott and Darling then responded and went to

9

Plaintiff's cell door. See id. Plaintiff informed Defendant Darling that he was suicidal, to which

10

Darling responded: "You're refusing to come out and we'll cell extract you." Id. Plaintiff denied

11

refusing to come out of his cell and told Darling once again that he was feeling suicidal. See id.

12

Plaintiff states that he attempted to hang himself but the noose broke. See id.
Plaintiff states that he then exited his cell and walked to "R&R" where he told the

13
14

nurse on duty that he was feeling suicidal. Id. Defendant Gutierrez then made an entry in a

15

logbook and spoke with Dr. Chambers, who admitted Plaintiff to a crisis bed. See id. Plaintiff

16

was placed in a holding cell where he states he again attempted to hang himself. See id.

17

According to Plaintiff, the nurse told him that she didn't care if Plaintiff died and that she gets

18

paid anyway. See id.

19

Claim II

20

According to Plaintiff, Defendant Guzman witnessed Plaintiff attempt to commit

21

suicide on multiple occasions "without taking Plaintiff serious in harming his self." Id. at 6.

22

Plaintiff states that he told Guzman he would end his life, but that Guzman did nothing. See id.

23

Plaintiff claims that his psychiatrist alerted Guzman about the seriousness of Plaintiff's suicidal

24

ideation. See id. Plaintiff repeats his allegation that, rather than protecting Plaintiff, Guzman

25

attempted to spray him. See id.

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

Claim III

2

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Scott and Darling did nothing to protect Plaintiff

3

from harming himself. See id. at 7. Instead, Scott and Darling attempted to "change the

4

situation" by telling Plaintiff that he was refusing to exit his cell, even though Plaintiff told them

5

he was suicidal and had attempted to hang himself. Id. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Darling

6

attempted to extract Plaintiff from his self without cause despite having been informed by

7

Plaintiff's psychiatrist that Plaintiff was suicidal. See id. Plaintiff claims Defendants Scott and

8

Darling denied Plaintiff medical care. See id.

9
II. DISCUSSION

10
11

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment

12

claim against any named defendant. As to Defendants Guzman, Gutierrez, Scott, and Darling, as

13

to whom the first amended complaint contains at least some specific allegations, the facts alleged

14

concerning the events of July 28, 2023, do not suggest deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's

15

suicidal ideation. As to all other named defendants, and as with the original complaint, Plaintiff

16

fails to establish a causal link between these defendants and the claimed Eighth Amendment

17

violations relating to Plaintiff's suicidal ideation.

18
19
20

A.

Plaintiff Fails to Allege Facts to Establish an Eighth Amendment Violation by
Defendants Guzman, Gutierrez, Scott, or Darling
The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the

21

prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel

22

and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan,

23

511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts

24

of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102

25

(1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v.

26

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with

27

“food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy,

28

801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when
4

1

two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such

2

that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2)

3

subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of

4

inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison

5

official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id.

6

Under these principles, prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to

7

protect inmates from harm. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 1982);

8

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. Liability exists only when two requirements are met: (1) objectively,

9

the prisoner was incarcerated under conditions presenting a substantial risk of serious harm; and

10

(2) subjectively, prison officials knew of and disregarded the risk. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

11

The very obviousness of the risk may suffice to establish the knowledge element. See Wallis v.

12

Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995). Prison officials are not liable, however, if evidence

13

is presented that they lacked knowledge of a safety risk. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. The

14

knowledge element does not require that the plaintiff prove that prison officials know for a

15

certainty that the inmate’s safety is in danger, but it requires proof of more than a mere suspicion

16

of danger. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Finally, the plaintiff must

17

show that prison officials disregarded a risk. Thus, where prison officials actually knew of a

18

substantial risk, they are not liable if they took reasonable steps to respond to the risk, even if

19

harm ultimately was not averted. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious

20
21

injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105;

22

see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental health

23

needs. See Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1253. An injury or illness is sufficiently serious if the failure to

24

treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the “. . . unnecessary and

25

wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled

26

on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see

27

also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994).

28

///
5

1

Here, the amended complaint contains specific factual allegations as against

2

Defendants Guzman, Gutierrez, Scott, and Darling. According to Plaintiff, Defendants Guzman

3

and Gutierrez first responded when it was noticed by Plaintiff's psychiatrist that Plaintiff had

4

made a noose. According to Plaintiff, Gutierrez asked Plaintiff what the problem was, and

5

Plaintiff told Gutierrez he was suicidal, at which point Gutierrez pressed the alarm button.

6

Defendants Scott and Darling responded to the alarm and Plaintiff was then escorted to see a

7

nurse in the R&R area. Though Plaintiff alleges facts to suggest the nurse's indifference to

8

Plaintiff's suicidal ideation, the nurse is not named as a defendant. At the R&R area, Defendant

9

Gutierrez spoke with a physician, who admitted Plaintiff to a crisis bed.

10

These alleged facts, which the Court presumes to be true, do not allow for the

11

inference that Defendants Guzman, Gutierrez, Scott or Darling were deliberately indifferent to

12

Plaintiff's suicidal ideation. To the contrary, the facts indicate that these defendants responded to

13

Plaintiff's situation and escorted Plaintiff to an area where he received medical attention.

14

B.

15

Plaintiff Fails to Allege Facts to Establish a Causal Connection Between Any
Other Named Defendant and a Violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
Rights

16

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual

17

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

18

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A

19

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of

20

§ 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform

21

an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”

22

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations

23

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

24

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth

25

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional

26

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

27

///

28

///
6

1

The first amended complaint fails to contain any factual allegations whatsoever as

2

to any named defendant other than Guzman, Gutierrez, Scott, and Darling. The Court has

3

previously advised Plaintiff of this pleading defect, and despite this advice, Plaintiff continues to

4

fail to establish a causal connection to the majority of the named defendants.

5
III. CONCLUSION

6
7

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

8

cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

9

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

10
11

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

12

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

13

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

14

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

15

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

16

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

17

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

18
19

Dated: August 27, 2024

____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7