MAURICE DARONTE DAVIS, No. 2:24-cv-03106-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ALICE NICOLAS, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. I. In Forma Pauperis Application Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). II. Screening Order Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) alleges that he has been deprived of adequate food in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 2-5. He states that meals are cold and uncooked or barely cooked. Id. at 2. Inmates are given extremely small portions, having been placed on a 2400 calorie per day diet by “C.D.C.R.’s Food Board of Nutrition.” Id. In addition, plaintiff’s chronic kidney disease and fish allergy are not being dietarily accommodated; when inmates are served fish, plaintiff must skip the fish portion of the meal without being provided a substitute. Id. at 4-5. As a result of these practices, plaintiff has lost weight, his body has deteriorated, and he has suffered hunger and stomach pain. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has named as defendants: Alice Nicolas (Dietician), Manjula Bobbala (Chief Medical Officer), and Jeff Lynch (Warden). He alleges that Nicolas has violated his Eighth Amendment rights “because the State of California gives C.D.C.R. $136,000 per year for each inmate [so t]here is no way C.D.C.R. doesn’t have enough money in the budget to feed each inmate accordingly.” Id. at 4. Defendant Lynch is liable, according to plaintiff, because “I’ve complained about this years ago and nothing happened.” Id. Plaintiff named Bobbala as defendant because “she oversees all things medical and is allowing this to happen on her watch.” The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted). “The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of these necessities must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred. The more basic the need, the shorter the time it can be withheld.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The sustained deprivation of food can be cruel and unusual punishment when it results in pain without any penological purpose.” Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 813-14 (9th Cir. 2009). Food provided to prisoners must be adequate to maintain health, but need not be tasty, attractive, or warm. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993). The United States Supreme Court has determined that cruel and unusual punishment involves more than negligence or lack of due care for a prisoner’s interests or safety. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Specifically, “it is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, whether that conduct occurs in connection with establishing conditions of confinement, supplying medical needs, or restoring official control over a tumultuous cellblock.” Id. Thus, to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts showing both (1) an objectively serious deprivation and (2) that each defendant had a subjectively culpable state of mind (often referred to as “deliberate indifference”) in allowing the deprivation to occur. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991); Chappell v. Pliler, No. 2:04-cv-1183 TLN DB P, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9875, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MAURICE DARONTE DAVIS, No. 2:24-cv-03106-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ALICE NICOLAS, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. I. In Forma Pauperis Application Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). II. Screening Order Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) alleges that he has been deprived of adequate food in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 2-5. He states that meals are cold and uncooked or barely cooked. Id. at 2. Inmates are given extremely small portions, having been placed on a 2400 calorie per day diet by “C.D.C.R.’s Food Board of Nutrition.” Id. In addition, plaintiff’s chronic kidney disease and fish allergy are not being dietarily accommodated; when inmates are served fish, plaintiff must skip the fish portion of the meal without being provided a substitute. Id. at 4-5. As a result of these practices, plaintiff has lost weight, his body has deteriorated, and he has suffered hunger and stomach pain. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has named as defendants: Alice Nicolas (Dietician), Manjula Bobbala (Chief Medical Officer), and Jeff Lynch (Warden). He alleges that Nicolas has violated his Eighth Amendment rights “because the State of California gives C.D.C.R. $136,000 per year for each inmate [so t]here is no way C.D.C.R. doesn’t have enough money in the budget to feed each inmate accordingly.” Id. at 4. Defendant Lynch is liable, according to plaintiff, because “I’ve complained about this years ago and nothing happened.” Id. Plaintiff named Bobbala as defendant because “she oversees all things medical and is allowing this to happen on her watch.” The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted). “The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of these necessities must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred. The more basic the need, the shorter the time it can be withheld.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The sustained deprivation of food can be cruel and unusual punishment when it results in pain without any penological purpose.” Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 813-14 (9th Cir. 2009). Food provided to prisoners must be adequate to maintain health, but need not be tasty, attractive, or warm. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993). The United States Supreme Court has determined that cruel and unusual punishment involves more than negligence or lack of due care for a prisoner’s interests or safety. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Specifically, “it is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, whether that conduct occurs in connection with establishing conditions of confinement, supplying medical needs, or restoring official control over a tumultuous cellblock.” Id. Thus, to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts showing both (1) an objectively serious deprivation and (2) that each defendant had a subjectively culpable state of mind (often referred to as “deliberate indifference”) in allowing the deprivation to occur. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991); Chappell v. Pliler, No. 2:04-cv-1183 TLN DB P, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9875, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In addition, the Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 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, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Supervisory personnel are not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff’s complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants. Plaintiff does not provide any information concerning number of times he has been denied adequate food or any details concerning those occasions, leaving the court unable to assess whether an objectively serious deprivation has occurred. In addition, plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts showing a causal link between each defendant and the alleged deprivation of adequate food. Plaintiff must state facts showing what acts (or failures to act) by each defendant deprived him of adequate food as well as facts showing that each defendant acted (or failed to act) with a deliberately indifferent state of mind. Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein. Leave to Amend Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Further, any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)). The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. See Local Rule 110. //// Conclusion Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this order. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended Complaint.” 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute.
Dated: November 10, 2025 Littl betel TF eLACLK* UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE