1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BLUE FIRE CLOUD ABREU, No. 2:25-cv-00644 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983 without a lawyer. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is before the undersigned for screening 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. 21 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this action, under 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 4.) He submitted a declaration showing that he cannot afford to pay 24 the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 25 forma pauperis is granted. This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 filing fee in 26 monthly installments that are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one lump sum. 27 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial partial 28 filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A separate order directed to 1 CDCR requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be taken 2 from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid in 3 full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 4 STATUTORY SCREENING OF PRISONER COMPLAINTS 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In 7 performing this screening function, the court must dismiss any claim that “(1) is frivolous, 8 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief 9 from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A claim is legally frivolous 10 when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 11 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 12 legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical 13 inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and 14 factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 15 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 16 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 17 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 18 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 19 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 20 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 21 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 22 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When 23 considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 24 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 25 favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 26 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 27 Plaintiff was in pretrial criminal custody in Shasta County Jail during the events 28 underlying the complaint. He names as defendants (1) County of Shasta, and (2) Shasta County 1 Sheriff’s Office and Jail Facility. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The complaint does not identify particular 2 causes of action but seeks thirty-million dollars in damages. (Id. at 3.) 3 Plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 2024, he was arrested based on the false statements of 4 D.W. Simmons. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Deputy Sheriff M. Scheibe falsified the arrest report. Plaintiff 5 was then falsely imprisoned, prosected, and convicted. (Id.) However, Plaintiff does not name 6 Simmons or Scheibe as defendants. Several weeks after filing the complaint in this case, plaintiff 7 filed another § 1983 action against Simmons, Scheibe, and others specifically challenging his 8 arrest and trial, see Abreu v. Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 2:25-cv-00813 DC CSK PC 9 (E.D. Cal.). Therefore, the undersigned treats the facts regarding plaintiff’s arrest/trial as 10 background information and construes the complaint as challenging conditions of confinement 11 and the alleged abuses plaintiff observed only. 12 Plaintiff went to “worker’s mod” in March 2024. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges he did “great 13 work,” first in the kitchen for three months and then in the interior for three months. In the 14 interior, he cleaned out blood from county trucks and cruisers. (Id.) This work and the abuses 15 and neglect of the mentally ill that he saw affected his own mental health. He went from being 16 one of the facility’s best workers to having an emotional breakdown. He was eventually put in 17 isolation, which deteriorated his mental health even more and caused him to lose his trial. (Id.) 18 Plaintiff spent twenty-three hours a day in isolation for seven months. (Id. at 2.) 19 Plaintiff goes on to describe abuses he has witnessed in the facility. He saw two sheriff 20 deputies, Charlie and Duhnham, threaten to take off their belts and abuse a man in a safety cell. 21 (ECF No. 1 at 2.) He saw five deputies grab a man half their size and throw him on the safety 22 cell floor and yell, “This is our house.” (Id.) While on the way to court, plaintiff saw Shasta 23 County Marshals laugh at a traumatized woman yelling “rape” as she came into the facility. (Id.) 24 On January 13, 2025, plaintiff saw a man named Walker wheeled out of his cell in a wheelchair 25 with a baseball-sized hole in his head. Plaintiff filed a grievance about it. He was told it was 26 approved but he never saw relief. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he didn’t have the mental stability to 27 function properly during his trial because of the corruption and abuses he saw in jail. (Id. at 3.) 28 //// 1 LEGAL STANDARDS 2 I. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 3 A plaintiff may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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 BLUE FIRE CLOUD ABREU, No. 2:25-cv-00644 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983 without a lawyer. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is before the undersigned for screening 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. 21 IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this action, under 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 4.) He submitted a declaration showing that he cannot afford to pay 24 the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 25 forma pauperis is granted. This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 filing fee in 26 monthly installments that are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one lump sum. 27 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a). As part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial partial 28 filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A separate order directed to 1 CDCR requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be taken 2 from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid in 3 full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 4 STATUTORY SCREENING OF PRISONER COMPLAINTS 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In 7 performing this screening function, the court must dismiss any claim that “(1) is frivolous, 8 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief 9 from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). A claim is legally frivolous 10 when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 11 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 12 legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical 13 inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and 14 factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 15 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 16 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 17 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 18 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 19 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 20 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial 21 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 22 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When 23 considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 24 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 25 favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 26 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 27 Plaintiff was in pretrial criminal custody in Shasta County Jail during the events 28 underlying the complaint. He names as defendants (1) County of Shasta, and (2) Shasta County 1 Sheriff’s Office and Jail Facility. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The complaint does not identify particular 2 causes of action but seeks thirty-million dollars in damages. (Id. at 3.) 3 Plaintiff alleges that on January 19, 2024, he was arrested based on the false statements of 4 D.W. Simmons. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Deputy Sheriff M. Scheibe falsified the arrest report. Plaintiff 5 was then falsely imprisoned, prosected, and convicted. (Id.) However, Plaintiff does not name 6 Simmons or Scheibe as defendants. Several weeks after filing the complaint in this case, plaintiff 7 filed another § 1983 action against Simmons, Scheibe, and others specifically challenging his 8 arrest and trial, see Abreu v. Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, et al., 2:25-cv-00813 DC CSK PC 9 (E.D. Cal.). Therefore, the undersigned treats the facts regarding plaintiff’s arrest/trial as 10 background information and construes the complaint as challenging conditions of confinement 11 and the alleged abuses plaintiff observed only. 12 Plaintiff went to “worker’s mod” in March 2024. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges he did “great 13 work,” first in the kitchen for three months and then in the interior for three months. In the 14 interior, he cleaned out blood from county trucks and cruisers. (Id.) This work and the abuses 15 and neglect of the mentally ill that he saw affected his own mental health. He went from being 16 one of the facility’s best workers to having an emotional breakdown. He was eventually put in 17 isolation, which deteriorated his mental health even more and caused him to lose his trial. (Id.) 18 Plaintiff spent twenty-three hours a day in isolation for seven months. (Id. at 2.) 19 Plaintiff goes on to describe abuses he has witnessed in the facility. He saw two sheriff 20 deputies, Charlie and Duhnham, threaten to take off their belts and abuse a man in a safety cell. 21 (ECF No. 1 at 2.) He saw five deputies grab a man half their size and throw him on the safety 22 cell floor and yell, “This is our house.” (Id.) While on the way to court, plaintiff saw Shasta 23 County Marshals laugh at a traumatized woman yelling “rape” as she came into the facility. (Id.) 24 On January 13, 2025, plaintiff saw a man named Walker wheeled out of his cell in a wheelchair 25 with a baseball-sized hole in his head. Plaintiff filed a grievance about it. He was told it was 26 approved but he never saw relief. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he didn’t have the mental stability to 27 function properly during his trial because of the corruption and abuses he saw in jail. (Id. at 3.) 28 //// 1 LEGAL STANDARDS 2 I. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 3 A plaintiff may bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of “rights, 4 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and [federal] laws” by a person or entity, 5 including a municipality, acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim 6 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that (1) a defendant acting under color of state law 7 (2) deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. Benavidez v. 8 County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021). 9 II. Linkage 10 Section 1983 requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the 11 defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. 12 Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 13 (1976). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant's 14 “personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 15 series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 16 [the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 17 constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks 18 and citation omitted). In other words, “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a 19 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 20 in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 21 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 22 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). 23 III. Municipal Liability 24 Municipalities are considered “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and therefore may be 25 liable for causing a constitutional deprivation. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 694; Long v. County of 26 Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). However, municipalities cannot be held 27 vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. 28 “Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its 1 lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts 2 the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. 3 To properly plead a Monell claim based on an unconstitutional custom, practice, or policy, 4 plaintiff must show that the government “had a deliberate policy, custom, or practice that was the 5 moving force behind the constitutional violation [plaintiff] suffered.” AE ex rel. Hernandez v. 6 County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 Plaintiff must also show that the policy or custom of the government “reflects deliberate 8 indifference” to plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 9 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Unless the challenged 10 policy is in writing, the municipal policy at issue must be the result of a “‘longstanding practice 11 or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity.’” 12 Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ulrich v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 13 308 F.3d 968, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted)). 14 DISCUSSION 15 I. Failure to State a Claim 16 For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any cognizable claims 17 for relief against either municipal defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 18 A. Fourteenth Amendment Conditions of Confinement 19 Plaintiff’s complaint, which is not on the form used in this district, does not list any causes 20 of action or identify which constitutional or federal statutory rights the municipal defendants 21 allegedly violated. Liberally construed, it appears to challenge his seven-month placement in an 22 isolation cell. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial detainee cannot be subject to 23 conditions that “amount to punishment.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2004) 24 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 (1979)). Punitive conditions may be shown where: 25 (1) the challenged restrictions are expressly intended to punish, or (2) where the challenged restrictions serve an alternative, non-punitive purpose but are 26 nonetheless excessive in relation to the alternative purpose, or are employed to achieve objectives that could be accomplished in so many alternative and less 27 harsh methods. 28 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). “Legitimate, non-punitive government interests 1 include ensuring a detainee’s presence at trial, maintaining jail security, and effective 2 management of a detention facility.” Id. (citations omitted). 3 However, the complaint does not adequately link plaintiff’s placement in isolation to a 4 policy or procedure of either of the municipal defendants. Therefore, the complaint fails to state a 5 cognizable Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claim. Plaintiff will be given leave 6 to amend. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he is advised to consider the legal standard provided 7 above. 8 B. Plaintiff Has No Standing to Represent Others 9 Plaintiff states in his complaint that he cares deeply for other incarcerated persons and 10 gives examples of alleged abuses of others that he has witnessed. However, pro se litigants like 11 plaintiff may not pursue claims on behalf of others. “It is well established that the privilege to 12 represent oneself pro se . . . is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or 13 entities.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). Therefore, to the 14 extent plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of the individuals whose alleged abuse and neglect 15 he witnessed, his complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff is advised that if he chooses to amend 16 he may only raise claims on his own behalf. 17 C. The Shasta County Jail is Not a Proper Defendant 18 The second defendant identified on the caption is “Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and Jail 19 Facility.” The Sheriff’s Office is a potentially viable defendant under Monell. However, the Jail 20 Facility itself is not. Courts routinely hold that jails and prisons are not “persons” who can be 21 sued under § 1983. See Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989) 22 (“Claims under § 1983 are directed at ‘persons’ and the jail is not a person amenable to suit.”). If 23 plaintiff chooses to amend, he is advised that he may not pursue a § 1983 claim against the Jail 24 Facility itself. 25 II. Leave to Amend 26 Having conducted the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the 27 complaint does not state any valid claims for relief. Because of these defects, the court will not 28 order the complaint to be served on defendants. Plaintiff may try to fix these problems by filing 1 an amended complaint. In deciding whether to file an amended complaint, plaintiff is advised to 2 consider the legal standards governing his potential claims for relief provided above. 3 If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 4 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 5 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). The complaint must also allege in specific terms how each named 6 defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 7 There can be no liability under § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection 8 between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743. 9 Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 10 are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 11 Plaintiff is also informed that the court will not refer to a prior pleading in order to make 12 his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 13 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 14 amended complaint supersedes any prior complaints. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 15 1967) (citations omitted). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, any previous complaint no 16 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 17 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 18 CONCLUSION 19 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. 21 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 22 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 24 appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 25 3. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 26 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and will not be served. 27 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an 28 amended complaint that complies with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Rules of 1 | Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 2 || number assigned this case, 2:25-cv-00644 SCR P, and must be labeled “First Amended 3 | Complaint.” 4 5. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a 5 || recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 6 || Procedure. 7 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 8 | form used in this district. 9 || DATED: August 26, 2025 10 md 1] SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28