1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC STRICKLAND, No. 2:25-cv-2947 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 G. MATTESON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 20 proceeding was referred to this Court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will 26 direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account 27 and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly 28 payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 1 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 2 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 5 II. SCREENING STANDARDS 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 13 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 16 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 17 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 18 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 19 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 20 1227. 21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 25 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 26 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 27 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 28 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 1 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 3 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 4 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 5 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 6 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 Named as defendants are Warden Matteson and Valerio. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff also 9 appears to name a doe defendant identified as a free staff supervisor. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s 10 complaint contains two claims for relief. (Id. at 3-4.) Both claims allege violations of the 11 Fourteenth Amendment based on the same facts. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on September 17, 12 2025, plaintiff was injured by a food cart at Solano State Prison. (Id.) This cart was broken and 13 should not have been in use by prison staff or workers. (Id.) In claim one, plaintiff alleges that 14 defendant doe free staff supervisor was notified of the broken food cart but failed to replace the 15 cart or have it fixed. (Id. at 3.) In claim two, plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden was notified 16 of the broken cart but failed to replace the cart or have it fixed. (Id. at 4.) 17 For the following reasons, the claims against defendant Valerio are dismissed. The Civil 18 Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 19 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 20 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, 21 or other proper proceeding for redress. 22 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 23 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 24 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 25 (1976).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CEDRIC STRICKLAND, No. 2:25-cv-2947 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 G. MATTESON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 20 proceeding was referred to this Court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will 26 direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account 27 and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly 28 payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 1 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 2 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 5 II. SCREENING STANDARDS 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 13 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 16 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 17 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 18 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 19 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 20 1227. 21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 25 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 26 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 27 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 28 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 1 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 3 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 4 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 5 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 6 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 Named as defendants are Warden Matteson and Valerio. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff also 9 appears to name a doe defendant identified as a free staff supervisor. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s 10 complaint contains two claims for relief. (Id. at 3-4.) Both claims allege violations of the 11 Fourteenth Amendment based on the same facts. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on September 17, 12 2025, plaintiff was injured by a food cart at Solano State Prison. (Id.) This cart was broken and 13 should not have been in use by prison staff or workers. (Id.) In claim one, plaintiff alleges that 14 defendant doe free staff supervisor was notified of the broken food cart but failed to replace the 15 cart or have it fixed. (Id. at 3.) In claim two, plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden was notified 16 of the broken cart but failed to replace the cart or have it fixed. (Id. at 4.) 17 For the following reasons, the claims against defendant Valerio are dismissed. The Civil 18 Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 19 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 20 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, 21 or other proper proceeding for redress. 22 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 23 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 24 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 25 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 26 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 27 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 28 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 1 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 2 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 3 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 4 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 5 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague 6 and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights 7 violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 8 The complaint contains no allegations linking defendant Valerio to any alleged 9 deprivations. For this reason, the claims against defendant Valerio are dismissed. 10 For the following reasons, the Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Warden 11 and doe free staff supervisor are dismissed. The “‘treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the 12 conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.’” 13 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 14 (1993)). The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to “ensure that inmates receive 15 adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care,” and to “‘take reasonable measures to 16 guarantee the safety of the inmates.’” Id. (quoting Hudson v Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 17 (1984)). 18 A prisoner asserting an Eighth Amendment claim based on a safety hazard must show not 19 only a hazardous condition posing a threat to his safety, but also some additional condition 20 exacerbating that threat, which standard is sometimes referred to as “danger-plus.” See Morgan 21 v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir. 2006) (hazard exacerbated when prison official 22 compelled inmate to continue working with dangerously defective equipment); see also Frost v. 23 Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[s]lippery floors without protective measures could 24 create a sufficient danger to warrant relief” when inmate on crutches repeatedly fell in shower 25 without disability accommodations); Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir. 1985) 26 (serious safety hazards in prison’s occupational areas were exacerbated by inadequate lighting); 27 but see Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 1996) (no exacerbating conditions when 28 inmate was able to see and avoid defective oven door which fell off and burned his arm). 1 In the complaint, plaintiff alleges a hazardous condition posing a threat to his safety, i.e., 2 the broken cart. However, plaintiff does not allege an additional condition that exacerbated the 3 threat to his safety caused by the broken cart. Plaintiff does not allege, for example, that a 4 defendant compelled plaintiff to use the broken cart while plaintiff was working. See Morgan, 5 465 F.3d at 1047. For this reason, plaintiff fails to state potentially colorable Eighth Amendment 6 claims. Accordingly, claims one and two are dismissed. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, 7 plaintiff shall also describe how the cart was broken, how he injured himself using the broken cart 8 and how defendants were notified of the allegedly broken cart. 9 IV. LEAVE TO AMEND 10 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 11 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 12 West, 487 U.S. at 48. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 13 defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no liability 14 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s 15 actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 16 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 17 rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 18 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 19 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 20 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 21 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 22 v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 23 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 24 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 25 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 26 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 27 /// 28 /// 1 | V. CONCLUSION 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is granted. 4 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 5 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 7 || Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 8 | herewith. 9 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 10 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 11 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 12 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 13 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 14 | Plaintiffs amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 15 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 16 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 17 | Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 18 || this action. 19 20 | Dated: November 17, 2025 A aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 | swicr047.142 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CEDRIC STRICKLAND, No. 2:25-cv-2947 CSK P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 G. MATTESON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 18 filed on ______________ (date). 19 20 Amended Complaint 21 (Check this box if submitting an Amended Complaint) 22 DATED: ________________________________ 23 Plaintiff 24 25 26 27 28