1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER R. ELIA, No. 2:22-cv-0702-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEREMY MARTIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 21 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 22 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 24 Screening Standards 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 28 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 3 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 5 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 6 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 8 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 9 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 11 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 12 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 14 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 15 678. 16 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 18 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 21 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 22 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 Screening Order 24 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges three claims for relief. 25 In claim one, plaintiff alleges that for at least nine months at the Amador County Jail, 26 defendants Martin and Stone denied him and all other inmates any outdoor time because the yard 27 was occupied by a medical quarantine tent set up in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. 28 Allegedly, the lack of fresh air and sunlight caused plaintiff a vitamin D deficiency, as well as 1 mental and emotional distress. Plaintiff does not allege whose decision it was to set up a medical 2 quarantine tent in the yard without making any alternative arrangements for inmates to have 3 outdoor time. Because depriving inmates of exercise may violate their constitutional rights under 4 certain circumstances, plaintiff will be given leave to amend this claim and specify who was 5 responsible for the alleged deprivation. The court notes, however, that prison officials may 6 restrict outdoor exercise based on weather, unusual circumstances, or disciplinary needs. See 7 Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199-200 (9th Cir. 1979). 8 In claim two, plaintiff alleges that he fractured his hand on August 3, 2021. On August 5, 9 2021, plaintiff was seen by defendant medical officials Koulakov, RN and Son, MD. On August 10 8, 2021, Dr. Son ordered an x-ray. The x-ray was done on August 11, 2021. On August 25, 11 2021, plaintiff was taken to Sutter Amador Hospital, where the specialist informed plaintiff that it 12 was too late to cast the broken bone because it had nearly healed in the time that had passed since 13 the injury. The specialist gave plaintiff a splint to immobilize his hand. On August 30, 2021, 14 defendants Koulakov and Son allegedly confiscated the splint on the grounds that it could be used 15 as a weapon and therefore jeopardized the safety and security of the institution. As a result of 16 their conduct, plaintiff claims his hand did not properly heal and is painful and deformed with 17 reduced function. 18 These allegations are not enough to survive screening. While defendants, on these alleged 19 facts, may have been negligent in failing to immediately immobilize plaintiff’s hand, the 20 allegations do not show that either defendant acted with the deliberate indifference necessary to 21 establish a constitutional violation. Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendant, 22 acting with a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence, denied, delayed, or interfered with 23 the treatment of plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); 24 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The indifference to medical needs must be 25 substantial; mere malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not constitute cruel and unusual 26 punishment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. 27 In claim three, plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2021 and September 21, 2021, 28 defendant Koulakov refused to order Covid-19 tests to inmates in cell block D who reported flu- 1 like symptoms and requested to be tested. On September 23, 2021, however, an inmate in cell 2 block D was tested, and the result was positive. Cell block D was then placed on quarantine and 3 all inmates were tested for Covid-19. On September 24, 2021, plaintiff was informed that an 4 additional three people had tested positive. Instead of isolating the infected inmates in the 5 medical quarantine tent, defendants Martin and Stone had them return to cell block D where 6 common areas, such as showers, were shared by both infected and uninfected inmates. At the 7 time, cell block D was overflowing, as all twelve of the two person cells were full and an 8 additional seven inmates were being housed in the dayroom. Plaintiff tested positive on 9 September 27, 2021.
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 CHRISTOPHER R. ELIA, No. 2:22-cv-0702-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEREMY MARTIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 20 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 21 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 22 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 24 Screening Standards 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 28 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 3 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 5 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 6 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 8 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 9 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 11 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 12 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 14 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 15 678. 16 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 18 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 21 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 22 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 Screening Order 24 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges three claims for relief. 25 In claim one, plaintiff alleges that for at least nine months at the Amador County Jail, 26 defendants Martin and Stone denied him and all other inmates any outdoor time because the yard 27 was occupied by a medical quarantine tent set up in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. 28 Allegedly, the lack of fresh air and sunlight caused plaintiff a vitamin D deficiency, as well as 1 mental and emotional distress. Plaintiff does not allege whose decision it was to set up a medical 2 quarantine tent in the yard without making any alternative arrangements for inmates to have 3 outdoor time. Because depriving inmates of exercise may violate their constitutional rights under 4 certain circumstances, plaintiff will be given leave to amend this claim and specify who was 5 responsible for the alleged deprivation. The court notes, however, that prison officials may 6 restrict outdoor exercise based on weather, unusual circumstances, or disciplinary needs. See 7 Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199-200 (9th Cir. 1979). 8 In claim two, plaintiff alleges that he fractured his hand on August 3, 2021. On August 5, 9 2021, plaintiff was seen by defendant medical officials Koulakov, RN and Son, MD. On August 10 8, 2021, Dr. Son ordered an x-ray. The x-ray was done on August 11, 2021. On August 25, 11 2021, plaintiff was taken to Sutter Amador Hospital, where the specialist informed plaintiff that it 12 was too late to cast the broken bone because it had nearly healed in the time that had passed since 13 the injury. The specialist gave plaintiff a splint to immobilize his hand. On August 30, 2021, 14 defendants Koulakov and Son allegedly confiscated the splint on the grounds that it could be used 15 as a weapon and therefore jeopardized the safety and security of the institution. As a result of 16 their conduct, plaintiff claims his hand did not properly heal and is painful and deformed with 17 reduced function. 18 These allegations are not enough to survive screening. While defendants, on these alleged 19 facts, may have been negligent in failing to immediately immobilize plaintiff’s hand, the 20 allegations do not show that either defendant acted with the deliberate indifference necessary to 21 establish a constitutional violation. Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendant, 22 acting with a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence, denied, delayed, or interfered with 23 the treatment of plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); 24 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The indifference to medical needs must be 25 substantial; mere malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not constitute cruel and unusual 26 punishment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. 27 In claim three, plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2021 and September 21, 2021, 28 defendant Koulakov refused to order Covid-19 tests to inmates in cell block D who reported flu- 1 like symptoms and requested to be tested. On September 23, 2021, however, an inmate in cell 2 block D was tested, and the result was positive. Cell block D was then placed on quarantine and 3 all inmates were tested for Covid-19. On September 24, 2021, plaintiff was informed that an 4 additional three people had tested positive. Instead of isolating the infected inmates in the 5 medical quarantine tent, defendants Martin and Stone had them return to cell block D where 6 common areas, such as showers, were shared by both infected and uninfected inmates. At the 7 time, cell block D was overflowing, as all twelve of the two person cells were full and an 8 additional seven inmates were being housed in the dayroom. Plaintiff tested positive on 9 September 27, 2021. Plaintiff is experiencing long-term effects of Covid such as shortness of 10 breath, chronic fatigue, depression and anxiety. Liberally construed, the “Claim III” allegations 11 of deliberate indifference to safety are sufficient to survive screening. 12 Plaintiff also appears to assert claims against defendants LaBarberra, Stewart, and the 13 Amador County Jail based on alleged inadequacies of the administrative grievance system. Such 14 claims cannot proceed because there are no constitutional requirements regarding how a 15 grievance system is operated. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding 16 that prisoner’s claimed loss of a liberty interest in the processing of his appeals does not violate 17 due process because prisoners lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison 18 grievance system). Thus, plaintiff may not impose liability on a defendant simply because he 19 played a role in processing plaintiff’s appeals or because the appeals process was otherwise 20 rendered unfair. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (an administrative 21 “grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the 22 inmates. Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural 23 protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment.” (internal quotations omitted)). 24 Plaintiff may either proceed with “Claim III” in the complaint on claims of deliberate 25 indifference to his safety against defendants Koulakov, Martin and Stone only or he may amend 26 his complaint to attempt to assert additional claims against the other named defendants. He may 27 not, however, change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 28 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Moreover, plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint. 1 Leave to Amend 2 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies noted above. 3 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in 4 a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 5 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if 6 he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do 7 that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff is not obligated to file an amended complaint. 8 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 9 amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 10 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 11 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 12 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 13 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 14 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 15 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 16 1967)). 17 The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 18 Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 19 See Local Rule 110. 20 Conclusion 21 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 23 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 24 in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 25 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 26 3. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, for screening purposes, potentially cognizable 27 deliberate indifference to safety claims against defendants Koulakov, Martin and 28 Stone. ] 4. All other claims (including those against defendant Stewart, La Barberra, Son, 2 Amador County Sheriff's Office, and County of Amador) are dismissed with leave 3 to amend within 30 days of service of this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to 4 amend his complaint. 5 5. Within thirty days plaintiff shall return the notice below advising the court whether 6 he elects to proceed with the cognizable claims or file an amended complaint. If 7 the former option is selected and retumed, the court will enter an order directing 8 service at that time. 9 6. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this 10 action. 11 | Dated: June 21, 2022.
> 13 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHRISTOPHER R. ELIA, No. 2:22-cv-0702-EFB P 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. NOTICE 12 JEREMY MARTIN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby elects to: 16 17 (1) ______ proceed only with the “Claim III” allegations of deliberate indifference to 18 safety against defendants Koulakov, Martin and Stone; 19 20 OR 21 22 (2) ______ delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. 23 24 _________________________________ 25 Plaintiff 26 Dated:
27 28