(PC) Casey v. Docanto

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 30, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00420
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JAMES ARTHUR CASEY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00420-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. ) LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

14 M. DOCANTO, et al., ) [ECF No. 1] )

15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 )

18 Plaintiff James Arthur Casey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on March 17, 2020, in the United States 20 District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. On March 23, 2020, the 21 action was transferred to this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint filed on March 17, 2020, is 22 before the Court for screening. 23 I. 24 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court 27 must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 28 or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary 1 relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 3 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 4 entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 5 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do 6 not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 7 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 8 in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally 10 construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 11 Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which 12 requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is 13 liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 14 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and 15 “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility 16 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 17 II. 18 SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 19 The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint as true only for the purpose of the 20 screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 Plaintiff names officer Docanto, officer Malinado, sergeant Navarro, and lieutenant Padrnos, as 22 Defendants. 23 Plaintiff was denied medical treatment for Hepatitis C. 24 Defendants Docanto and Malinado were the medical escort officers and instructed Plaintiff to 25 strip naked for a search. 26 Plaintiff stood naked at the cell door and Defendants Docanto and Malinado asked him to lift 27 his private parts and then move them around. Plaintiff was then asked to turn around, squat and 28 cough, and open his buttocks as far as he could. Plaintiff followed Defendants instructions because he 1 was scared that he would not be allowed to go to his medical appointment. Both Defendants made 2 sexual comments to Plaintiff to which he did not respond. Plaintiff then grabbed his clothing and 3 Defendant Docanto slammed the cell door tray closed and both Defendants left. 4 Plaintiff requests monetary damages and that both Defendants be terminated. 5 III. 6 DISCUSSION 7 A. Linkage Requirement 8 Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 9 federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 10 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 11 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, 12 but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada 13 ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 14 386, 393-94 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts 15 demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or 16 omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 17 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 18 Although Plaintiff names Defendants Padrnos and Navarro as Defendants, Plaintiff fails to link 19 them to an affirmative act or omission giving rise to his alleged constitutional violations. 20 B. Supervisory Liability 21 To the extent Plaintiff is suing prison officials based on their supervisory positions, Plaintiff is 22 advised under section 1983, Plaintiff must prove that the defendants holding supervisory positions 23 personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 24 2002). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own 25 misconduct. Iqbal, at 1948-49. A supervisor may be held liable for the constitutional violations of his 26 or her subordinates only if he or she “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the 27 violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); 28 Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of 1 Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 2 1997). 3 C. Exhibits Attached to Complaint 4 Plaintiff attaches a couple Form 602 inmate appeals to his complaint. While exhibits are 5 permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal 6 system of notice pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff is advised that he cannot attach exhibits 7 without incorporation or rely exclusively on exhibits for the representation of the facts to his case. It 8 is Plaintiff’s burden to present the facts of his case in a “short and plain” manner, and the Court will 9 not comb through unincorporated exhibits to sift out facts in order to determine the nature of the 10 claims. See e.g., Stewart v. Nevada, No. 2:09-CV-01063, 2011 WL 588485, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 11 2011) (“The Court will not comb through attached exhibits seeking to determine whether a claim 12 possibly could have been stated where the pleading itself does not state a claim. In short, [Plaintiff] 13 must state a claim, not merely attach exhibits.”) Plaintiff’s allegations fail to give rise to a cognizable 14 claim for relief. To the extent that Plaintiff’s factual deficiencies in his claims are cured by facts set 15 forth in his exhibits but not in the body of his complaint, Plaintiff should file an amended complaint 16 that specifically alleges all facts to support his claims without relying on exhibits. 17 D. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need 18 While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 19 care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 20 an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled 21 in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. 22 Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 23 Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition 24 could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that 25 “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing 26 Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 27 to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 28 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 1 recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and 2 quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 3 “A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical 4 professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 5 indifference.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); 6 Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23 (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, 7 Plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under 8 the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk 9 to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks 10 omitted). In addition, mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this 11 cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle 12 v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)). “Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional 13 violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Snow, 681 F.3d at 987- 14 88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (“The deliberate indifference doctrine is limited in scope.”). 15 Although Plaintiff contends that he has Hepatitis C for which he receives treatment, 16 Plaintiff fails to demonstrate on the face of the complaint that Defendants Docanto and Malinado acted 17 with deliberate indifference to his medical condition and/or treatment. As stated under section C, the 18 Court will not comb through the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s complaint to compile the factual 19 allegations relating to his claims. Rather, Plaintiff must set forth the necessary facts to support his 20 claims on the face of the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief 21 and leave to amend will be granted. 22 E. Sexual Assault 23 “Sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer is a violation of the Eighth 24 Amendment.” Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). “[A] 25 prisoner presents a viable Eighth Amendment claim where he or she proves that a prison staff 26 member, acting under color of law and without legitimate penological justification, touched the 27 prisoner in a sexual manner or otherwise engaged in sexual conduct for the staff member's own sexual 28 1 gratification, or for the purpose of humiliating, degrading, or demeaning the prisoner.” Bearchild v. 2 Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1144 (9th Cir. 2020). 3 Here, although Plaintiff contends that the visual strip search went beyond a “normal” search 4 and “sexual comments” were made, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient factual details to find that it 5 was done for the officers’ own sexual gratification, or for the purpose of humiliating, degrading, or 6 demeaning Plaintiff. In amending the complaint, Plaintiff should include all of the factual allegations 7 relating to exactly what Defendants told him to do, what comments were made, and how the search 8 went beyond a “normal” search. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and 9 leave to amend will be granted. 10 F. Inmate Appeal Process 11 To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to hold Defendants liable simply because they denied his 12 inmate appeals, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim. “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process 13 Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke 14 its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 15 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, 16 and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or 17 resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 18 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim based on the 19 handling and/or denying of his inmate appeals. 20 G. Request for Relief 21 Plaintiff requests that Defendants be terminated from their employment. 22 Any award of equitable relief in this action is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act 23 (“PLRA”), which provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective relief in any civil action with respect to 24 prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of 25 a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the 26 court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 27 violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 28 Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Thus, the federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature 1 and its power to issue equitable orders may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying 2 constitutional violations which form the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 2626(a)(1)(A); 3 Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 4 95, 101 (1983); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). 5 This Court does not have the jurisdiction to order the California Department of Corrections and 6 Rehabilitation to terminate Defendants from their employment nor would such relief correct the 7 violations alleged herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the termination of Defendants from their 8 employment is subject to dismissal. 9 IV. 10 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 11 For the reasons discussed, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and shall be granted 12 leave to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this order, if he believes he can 13 do so in good faith. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each 15 named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 16 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 17 above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Further, Plaintiff may 18 not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 19 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints). 20 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Lacey 21 v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must 22 be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 23 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 25 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 26 amended complaint; 27 3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length; and 28 4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the Court 1 will recommend to a district judge that this action be dismissed consistent with tl 2 reasons stated in this order. 3 4 IS SO ORDERED. ot fe Sl] Dated: _ March 27, 2020 OF 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28