Antwone Stokes v. Officer Greenwalt

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 23, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-04187
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-04187-ODW-AGR Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTWONE STOKES, ) NO. CV 22-4187-ODW (AGR) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER DISMISSING v. ) COMPLAINT AGAINST 14 ) DEFENDANTS ESQUAVIS, OFFICER GREENWALT; CALLE; ) MCMORROW, LINARES AND 15 ESQUAVIS; MCMORROW; ) MARTINEZ WITH LEAVE TO LINARES; MARTINEZ, ) AMEND 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) 18 19 I. 20 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated Mens Central Jail, filed a civil rights complaint 22 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against (1) Deputy Greenwalt; (2) Deputy Calle; (3) 23 Deputy Esquavis; (4) Sergeant McMorrow; (5) Deputy Linares; and (6) Deputy 24 Martinez. Each officer was sued in his or her individual capacity. 25 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and without prepayment of filing fees. 26 The Court screens the complaint to determine whether it fails to state a 27 claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. 28 The Court’s screening is governed by the following standards. To survive Case 2:22-cv-04187-ODW-AGR Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:19

1 dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 2 ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 3 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the 4 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 5 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility 6 standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a 7 sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (citations omitted). 8 A pro se complaint is to be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 9 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint 10 for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff should be given a statement of the 11 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to cure them unless it is clear the 12 deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 13 1135-36 (9th Cir. 1987). 14 II. 15 SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT 16 Plaintiff does not disclose whether he is incarcerated as a pretrial detainee 17 or as a convicted prisoner. 18 Plaintiff alleges that, on April 18, 2022 he was moved to cell C-12-3300. 19 The cell had no running water. The cold water did not work and the hot water 20 shot into the air. Plaintiff alerted Deputy Calle to the situation, and Deputy 21 Greenwalt told Plaintiff that he had toilet water to use. Plaintiff was forced to 22 drink toilet water. Finally, on May 25, 2022, Plaintiff notified Officer Jara, who 23 called for an emergency plumber to fix the water. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 7-8.)1 24 The complaint asserts an Eighth Amendment claim and seeks monetary 25 and other relief. (Id. at 9.) 26 27 28 1 Because the complaint is not consecutively paginated, the court refers to the pages assigned by CM/ECF in the header of the document. 2 Case 2:22-cv-04187-ODW-AGR Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:20

1 III. 2 SUPERVISORY AND INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY 3 The complaint does not disclose whether Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or 4 convicted prisoner. However, the complaint asserts a claim under the Eighth 5 Amendment, which applies to convicted prisoners. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 6 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The complaint also cites a 7 prior action Plaintiff filed in the Eastern District of California. That action referred 8 to Plaintiff as a convicted prisoner and applied the Eighth Amendment. Stokes v. 9 Meir, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70580 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021). Accordingly, this 10 court proceeds to analyze Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth Amendment. 11 The complaint appears to assert plausible claims for relief against Deputy 12 Greenwalt and Deputy Calle for leaving Plaintiff without running water during April 13 18 – May 25, 2022 and thereby forcing him to drink toilet water. 14 The complaint does not sufficiently allege a plausible factual basis for 15 liability against the remaining defendants – Deputy Esquavis, Sergeant 16 McMorrow, Deputy Linares and Deputy Martinez. The complaint alleges a 17 conclusory allegation that these defendants “were all made aware that I had no 18 access to water.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) The complaint does not allege how 19 each defendant knew, who informed him or her, and when. 20 “[A] prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for 21 denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a 22 substantial risk of harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable 23 measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). The 24 complaint must allege facts indicating that the prison official “knows of and 25 disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be 26 aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 27 serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. 28 To the extent Plaintiff relies on supervisory liability, supervisors are not 3 Case 2:22-cv-04187-ODW-AGR Document 5 Filed 06/23/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:21

1 vicariously liable for the constitutional violations of other persons under Section 2 1983, but only for their own conduct. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 3 (9th Cir. 2013). “A supervisory official is liable under § 1983 so long as ‘there 4 exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, 5 or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct 6 and the constitutional violation.’” Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 7 776, 798 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 8 (9th Cir. 2011). The causal connection may be established by setting in motion a 9 series of acts by others, or by knowingly refusing to terminate a series of acts by 10 others, that the supervisor knew or reasonably should have known would cause 11 others to inflict a constitutional injury. Id. at 1207–08. “A supervisor can be liable 12 in his individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, 13 supervision, or control of his subordinates; for his acquiescence in the 14 constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous 15 indifference to the rights of others.” Id. at 1208 (citation omitted). 16 IV. 17 ORDER 18 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the complaint 19 against Defendants Esquavis, McMorrow, Linares, and Martinez with leave to 20 amend within 30 days after entry of this order. 21 If Plaintiff chooses to file a First Amended Complaint, it must bear the 22 docket number assigned to this case, be labeled “First Amended Complaint,” and 23 be complete in and of itself without reference to the prior complaint, attachments, 24 pleadings or other documents. The First Amended Complaint supersedes the 25 original complaint and must contain all of Plaintiff’s claims against all defendants 26 named in the First Amended Complaint, including Defendants Calle and 27 Greenwalt. 28 If Plaintiff does not timely file a First Amended Complaint, the action will 4 ase 2:22-cv-04187-ODW-AGR Document5 Filed 06/23/22 Page5of5 Page ID#:22

1 proceed on Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Calle and 2 Greenwalt in their individual capacity. ~ Gdiait DATED: June 23 2022 SY 7 6 United States District Judge 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28