1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JASON LOKERSON, No. 2:24-cv-0494 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TUCKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 §1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint for screening. For the reasons 19 set forth below, this court finds plaintiff states potentially cognizable claims for relief against 20 defendants Tucker and Rueda but states no other claims. Plaintiff will be given a choice. 21 Plaintiff may proceed immediately on his claims against Tucker and Rueda, and dismiss the other 22 claims and defendants, or plaintiff may file a third amended complaint. 24 I. Legal Standards 25 As described in the court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen 26 complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 27 U.S.C. §1983. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis 28 for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 1 Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 2 defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 3 (1978). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s 4 “personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 5 series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 6 [the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 7 constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 8 marks and citations omitted). A court shall dismiss a complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon 9 which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 10 II. Background 11 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on February 15, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Before the court 12 screened that complaint, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 4, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) 13 Plaintiff sought relief against four defendants. He identified two as Correctional Officers Tucker 14 and Rueda. He did not provide names for the other two defendants. He identified them as 15 Captain Doe and Lieutenant Doe. Plaintiff alleged that in 2021 and 2022 when he was 16 incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”), he was threatened and attacked by 17 another inmate, McNeil. Despite knowledge of the threats and of prior attacks, defendants failed 18 to take action to protect plaintiff from McNeil. McNeil attacked plaintiff in March 2022 causing 19 plaintiff significant injuries. Plaintiff further alleged that based on the confrontations with 20 McNeil, he was transferred to a prison that cannot accommodate his disabilities. 21 On screening, the court found plaintiff stated no claims for relief cognizable under section 22 1983. (ECF No. 9.) The court found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing Captain Doe had 23 knowledge of any threats or attacks by McNeil and failed to show Lieutenant Doe had knowledge 24 of continuing threats from McNeil or that he failed to take appropriate action when told of a 25 threat. The court further found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that Tucker and Rueda had 26 sufficient information to know that plaintiff was at risk of an attack by McNeil in March 2022. 27 The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 28 //// 1 III. Discussion 2 A. Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) 3 Plaintiff identifies the same defendants identified previously - Correctional Officers 4 Tucker and Rueda, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant Doe. Plaintiff adds as a defendant Robert 5 Burton, the Warden at CHCF. 6 Plaintiff alleges the following: He is wheelchair bound and suffers from seizures. In 7 October 2021, plaintiff was housed in a yard with inmate McNeil. McNeil was placed on that 8 yard due to hypotension but was otherwise able-bodied. McNeil had a history of attacking 9 disabled inmates, which all defendants “would have known.” 10 On November 1, 2021, McNeil threatened plaintiff numerous times within earshot of 11 defendants Rueda and Tucker. McNeil then attacked plaintiff. Neither defendant intervened until 12 McNeil attacked. Plaintiff and McNeil were separated and each signed a “marriage chrono.” 13 Plaintiff describes a marriage chrono as a document in which inmates agree to get along. 14 On November 2, McNeil attacked another inmate. When plaintiff called for help, McNeil 15 began assaulting plaintiff. After that assault, McNeil was confined to quarters. Plaintiff contends 16 Captain Doe instituted a policy at CHCF whereby violent inmates were housed with low security, 17 nonviolent ones. Under the previous policy, an inmate like McNeil who was confined to quarters 18 due to violence would have been moved to a new housing unit. 19 Over a month later, Lieutenant Doe asked plaintiff to sign a marriage chrono regarding 20 McNeil. Doe told plaintiff he felt McNeil was no longer a threat. Plaintiff felt compelled to sign. 21 Plaintiff states that an inmate who refuses to sign a marriage chrono is at risk of being moved to 22 another institution. According to plaintiff, CHCF is the only institution that can accommodate his 23 disabilities. 24 On February 16, 2022, McNeil was released from confinement to quarters. McNeil then 25 began harassing plaintiff. Tucker and Rueda were working in the building at that time and 26 “would have had ample opportunity to observe McNeil’s harassment campaign.” 27 //// 28 //// 1 On February 19, McNeil threatened plaintiff. Plaintiff later told Lieutenant Doe about the 2 threats. Lieutenant Doe, who was Tucker and Rueda’s senior officer, told plaintiff to talk with 3 them the following day. Plaintiff did so. 4 Over the next 28 days, McNeil continued to harass and threaten plaintiff on a “near-daily 5 basis.” Plaintiff told Tucker and Rueda about the threats “as they were happening.” 6 On March 19, McNeil attacked plaintiff for a third time, resulting in a concussion and 7 damage to plaintiff’s teeth. Plaintiff and McNeil were then documented as having “enemy 8 concerns.” CHCF policy was to transfer one of the inmates to a new prison. On May 11, 2022, 9 CDCR transferred plaintiff to Salinas Valley State Prison and placed him in the Correctional 10 Treatment Center (“CTC”). CDCR later moved him to High Desert State Prison and again placed 11 him in the CTC. Plaintiff states that the CTC at each prison is the only housing area that can 12 accommodate his disabilities but being housed there means he does not have access to in-person 13 visiting, groups, and religious services, among other things. 14 B. Does Plaintiff State Claims for Relief? 15 Plaintiff has alleged minimally sufficient claims that defendants Tucker and Rueda were 16 deliberately indifferent to the threats of harm to plaintiff from inmate McNeil in violation of the 17 Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s allegations show that Tucker and Rueda were aware of the 18 November 1, 2021 attack and that plaintiff repeatedly told them that he was being threatened by 19 McNeil during the month leading up to the March 19, 2022 attack.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JASON LOKERSON, No. 2:24-cv-0494 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TUCKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 §1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint for screening. For the reasons 19 set forth below, this court finds plaintiff states potentially cognizable claims for relief against 20 defendants Tucker and Rueda but states no other claims. Plaintiff will be given a choice. 21 Plaintiff may proceed immediately on his claims against Tucker and Rueda, and dismiss the other 22 claims and defendants, or plaintiff may file a third amended complaint. 24 I. Legal Standards 25 As described in the court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen 26 complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 27 U.S.C. §1983. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis 28 for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 1 Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 2 defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 3 (1978). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s 4 “personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 5 series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 6 [the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 7 constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 8 marks and citations omitted). A court shall dismiss a complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon 9 which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 10 II. Background 11 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on February 15, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Before the court 12 screened that complaint, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 4, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) 13 Plaintiff sought relief against four defendants. He identified two as Correctional Officers Tucker 14 and Rueda. He did not provide names for the other two defendants. He identified them as 15 Captain Doe and Lieutenant Doe. Plaintiff alleged that in 2021 and 2022 when he was 16 incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”), he was threatened and attacked by 17 another inmate, McNeil. Despite knowledge of the threats and of prior attacks, defendants failed 18 to take action to protect plaintiff from McNeil. McNeil attacked plaintiff in March 2022 causing 19 plaintiff significant injuries. Plaintiff further alleged that based on the confrontations with 20 McNeil, he was transferred to a prison that cannot accommodate his disabilities. 21 On screening, the court found plaintiff stated no claims for relief cognizable under section 22 1983. (ECF No. 9.) The court found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing Captain Doe had 23 knowledge of any threats or attacks by McNeil and failed to show Lieutenant Doe had knowledge 24 of continuing threats from McNeil or that he failed to take appropriate action when told of a 25 threat. The court further found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that Tucker and Rueda had 26 sufficient information to know that plaintiff was at risk of an attack by McNeil in March 2022. 27 The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 28 //// 1 III. Discussion 2 A. Allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) 3 Plaintiff identifies the same defendants identified previously - Correctional Officers 4 Tucker and Rueda, Captain Doe, and Lieutenant Doe. Plaintiff adds as a defendant Robert 5 Burton, the Warden at CHCF. 6 Plaintiff alleges the following: He is wheelchair bound and suffers from seizures. In 7 October 2021, plaintiff was housed in a yard with inmate McNeil. McNeil was placed on that 8 yard due to hypotension but was otherwise able-bodied. McNeil had a history of attacking 9 disabled inmates, which all defendants “would have known.” 10 On November 1, 2021, McNeil threatened plaintiff numerous times within earshot of 11 defendants Rueda and Tucker. McNeil then attacked plaintiff. Neither defendant intervened until 12 McNeil attacked. Plaintiff and McNeil were separated and each signed a “marriage chrono.” 13 Plaintiff describes a marriage chrono as a document in which inmates agree to get along. 14 On November 2, McNeil attacked another inmate. When plaintiff called for help, McNeil 15 began assaulting plaintiff. After that assault, McNeil was confined to quarters. Plaintiff contends 16 Captain Doe instituted a policy at CHCF whereby violent inmates were housed with low security, 17 nonviolent ones. Under the previous policy, an inmate like McNeil who was confined to quarters 18 due to violence would have been moved to a new housing unit. 19 Over a month later, Lieutenant Doe asked plaintiff to sign a marriage chrono regarding 20 McNeil. Doe told plaintiff he felt McNeil was no longer a threat. Plaintiff felt compelled to sign. 21 Plaintiff states that an inmate who refuses to sign a marriage chrono is at risk of being moved to 22 another institution. According to plaintiff, CHCF is the only institution that can accommodate his 23 disabilities. 24 On February 16, 2022, McNeil was released from confinement to quarters. McNeil then 25 began harassing plaintiff. Tucker and Rueda were working in the building at that time and 26 “would have had ample opportunity to observe McNeil’s harassment campaign.” 27 //// 28 //// 1 On February 19, McNeil threatened plaintiff. Plaintiff later told Lieutenant Doe about the 2 threats. Lieutenant Doe, who was Tucker and Rueda’s senior officer, told plaintiff to talk with 3 them the following day. Plaintiff did so. 4 Over the next 28 days, McNeil continued to harass and threaten plaintiff on a “near-daily 5 basis.” Plaintiff told Tucker and Rueda about the threats “as they were happening.” 6 On March 19, McNeil attacked plaintiff for a third time, resulting in a concussion and 7 damage to plaintiff’s teeth. Plaintiff and McNeil were then documented as having “enemy 8 concerns.” CHCF policy was to transfer one of the inmates to a new prison. On May 11, 2022, 9 CDCR transferred plaintiff to Salinas Valley State Prison and placed him in the Correctional 10 Treatment Center (“CTC”). CDCR later moved him to High Desert State Prison and again placed 11 him in the CTC. Plaintiff states that the CTC at each prison is the only housing area that can 12 accommodate his disabilities but being housed there means he does not have access to in-person 13 visiting, groups, and religious services, among other things. 14 B. Does Plaintiff State Claims for Relief? 15 Plaintiff has alleged minimally sufficient claims that defendants Tucker and Rueda were 16 deliberately indifferent to the threats of harm to plaintiff from inmate McNeil in violation of the 17 Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s allegations show that Tucker and Rueda were aware of the 18 November 1, 2021 attack and that plaintiff repeatedly told them that he was being threatened by 19 McNeil during the month leading up to the March 19, 2022 attack. Plaintiff will be permitted to 20 proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims that Tucker and Rueda failed to protect him from the 21 March 19, 2022 attack. 22 Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege claims against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff 23 alleges that Lieutenant Doe had some awareness that McNeil was a threat to plaintiff. However, 24 plaintiff does not allege facts showing that Lieutenant Doe knew of the threats occurring in the 25 month prior to the March 2022 attack. Plaintiff also fails to show Lieutenant Doe’s referral of the 26 problem to Tucker and Rueda was so unreasonable that it demonstrates he knew of, and 27 disregarded, a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 28 837 (1994). 1 Plaintiff also fails to state a sufficient claim against Captain Doe. The fact that Captain 2 Doe changed a policy that created more risk for all low security inmates does not demonstrate 3 that Captain Doe knew that any inmates, much less plaintiff, had suffered harm as a result of that 4 policy change or would suffer harm. Plaintiff’s allegations do not show Captain Doe was aware 5 of the specific risks McNeil posed to plaintiff. 6 Finally, plaintiff identifies the warden as a defendant but does not describe any actions 7 attributable to him. Nor does plaintiff state any claims based on the transfer to another prison. 8 Plaintiff does not have a right to choose his place of incarceration. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 9 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983) (prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular 10 institution); see also Tyler v. Coggins, No. 1:10-cv-0098 AWI MJS (PC), 2012 WL 285023, *2 11 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012) (denial of requested transfer did not constitute sufficiently serious 12 deprivation to satisfy first element of Eighth Amendment claim); Seidenfeld v. Rosales, No. CV 13 10-7004 PA (JCG), 2011 WL 835782, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2011). To the extent plaintiff feels 14 the place he is currently incarcerated is violating his rights, he should seek relief against the 15 appropriate defendants responsible for those current conditions. 17 This court finds above that plaintiff states minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claims 18 against defendants Tucker and Rueda. This court further finds that plaintiff fails to state any 19 other claims for relief cognizable under §1983. Plaintiff will be given a choice. Plaintiff may 20 choose to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against Tucker and Rueda or he 21 may choose to file a third amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed now on his claims 22 against Tucker and Rueda, plaintiff will voluntarily dismiss all other claims and defendants. 23 If plaintiff chooses to file a third amended complaint, plaintiff must address the problems 24 with his second amended complaint that are explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in an 25 amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took 26 that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required to review exhibits to determine 27 what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a 28 claim, he must include it in the body of the complaint. The charging allegations must be set forth 1 in the amended complaint so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. 2 That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff 3 should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 4 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 5 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 6 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 7 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 8 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a person deprives another of a 9 constitutional right if that person was personally involved in the deprivation, set in motion acts by 10 others that resulted in the deprivation, or refused to terminate acts by others that resulted in the 11 deprivation). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 12 are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 13 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 14 R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 16 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 17 The federal rules contemplate brevity. Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and 18 plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 19 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to 20 focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 21 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 22 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 23 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has 24 evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 25 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// ] For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 2 || follows: 3 1. Plaintiff has stated minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 4 Tucker and Rueda. 5 2. Plaintiff's other claims and defendants are dismissed with leave to amend. 6 3. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his potentially cognizable claims set out above or 7 he may choose to file a third amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on 8 his potentially cognizable claims in the second amended complaint, he shall 9 voluntarily dismiss his other claims and defendants. 10 4. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 11 attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action. 12 5. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a 13 recommendation that this action be dismissed. 14 | DATED: December 11, 2024 food 16 /
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 JASON LOKERSON, No. 2:24-cv-0494 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO PROCEED 14 TUCKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against 19 defendants Tucker and Rueda. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the 20 second amended complaint he is voluntarily dismissing all other claims and defendants. 21 22 _____ Plaintiff wants to file a third amended complaint. 23 24 DATED:______________________ 25 26 ____________________________________ 27 Jason Lokerson, Plaintiff