1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL SALDANA, No. 2:22-cv-0801-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ST. ANDRE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and an amended complaint (ECF 19 No. 5), he has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915 (ECF No. 6). 21 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 Screening Standards 27 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 28 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 2 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 4 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 5 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 7 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 8 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 10 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 11 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 12 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 13 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 14 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 15 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 16 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 17 678. 18 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 19 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 20 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 22 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 23 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 24 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 25 Screening Order 26 The court screens plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 5), which supercedes the 27 original complaint (ECF No. 1), and raises three claims for relief. As discussed below, plaintiff’s 28 claims are not sufficient to survive screening. 1 In Claim I, plaintiff alleges that he was cuffed for transport on April 4, 2022 by defendant 2 correctional officer Gonzales, and Gonzales’s partner, referred to by plaintiff as “John Doe.” The 3 defendants were in receipt of a medical report discussing plaintiff’s hand surgery and plaintiff 4 informed them that he had a medical chrono for waist restraints. With malicious intent, 5 defendants allegedly tightly cuffed plaintiff with standard handcuffs, resulting in bruising, 6 swelling, cuts, and numbness. 7 For an excessive force claim, plaintiff must show that the officer applied the force 8 maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 9 discipline. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). In making this determination, the court 10 may evaluate (1) the need for application of force, (2) the relationship between that need and the 11 amount of force used, (3) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and (4) any 12 efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7; see also id. at 9-10 (“The 13 Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from 14 constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not 15 of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” (internal quotation marks and citations 16 omitted)). In any amended complaint, with these factors in mind, plaintiff should provide more 17 factual context to his claim. For example, why was plaintiff being transported and restrained? 18 How long was he restrained? What medical condition necessitated waist chains as opposed to 19 handcuffs and were those needs made clear in the medical report? 20 In Claim II, plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden St. Andre should be held liable for his 21 employees’ lack of training and failure to adhere to CDCR policy. Again, these allegations are 22 too vague and conclusory to survive screening as it is not clear how St. Andre personally 23 participated in a violation of plaintiff’s rights. Rather, plaintiff seems to have named St. Andre as 24 a defendant simply because of his role as a supervisor, which is not a proper basis for liability. 25 See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 26 In Claim III, plaintiff alleges he was seen on April 5, 2022 by defendant nurse Kersh. 27 Kersh told plaintiff that there was no record of him having a medical chrono for waist chains. 28 ///// 1 She also refused to document plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff claims she violated CDCR values. 2 Plaintiff’s injuries were ultimately documented by correctional officer Lee and another nurse. 3 Plaintiff purports to bring an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs 4 claim against Kersh. Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendant, acting with a 5 state of mind more blameworthy than negligence, denied, delayed, or interfered with the 6 treatment of plaintiff's serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); 7 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The indifference to medical needs must be 8 substantial; mere malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not constitute cruel and unusual 9 punishment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.
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 SAMUEL SALDANA, No. 2:22-cv-0801-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ST. ANDRE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and an amended complaint (ECF 19 No. 5), he has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915 (ECF No. 6). 21 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 26 Screening Standards 27 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 28 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 2 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 4 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 5 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 7 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 8 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 10 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 11 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 12 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 13 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 14 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 15 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 16 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 17 678. 18 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 19 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 20 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 22 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 23 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 24 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 25 Screening Order 26 The court screens plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 5), which supercedes the 27 original complaint (ECF No. 1), and raises three claims for relief. As discussed below, plaintiff’s 28 claims are not sufficient to survive screening. 1 In Claim I, plaintiff alleges that he was cuffed for transport on April 4, 2022 by defendant 2 correctional officer Gonzales, and Gonzales’s partner, referred to by plaintiff as “John Doe.” The 3 defendants were in receipt of a medical report discussing plaintiff’s hand surgery and plaintiff 4 informed them that he had a medical chrono for waist restraints. With malicious intent, 5 defendants allegedly tightly cuffed plaintiff with standard handcuffs, resulting in bruising, 6 swelling, cuts, and numbness. 7 For an excessive force claim, plaintiff must show that the officer applied the force 8 maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 9 discipline. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). In making this determination, the court 10 may evaluate (1) the need for application of force, (2) the relationship between that need and the 11 amount of force used, (3) the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and (4) any 12 efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7; see also id. at 9-10 (“The 13 Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from 14 constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not 15 of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” (internal quotation marks and citations 16 omitted)). In any amended complaint, with these factors in mind, plaintiff should provide more 17 factual context to his claim. For example, why was plaintiff being transported and restrained? 18 How long was he restrained? What medical condition necessitated waist chains as opposed to 19 handcuffs and were those needs made clear in the medical report? 20 In Claim II, plaintiff alleges that defendant Warden St. Andre should be held liable for his 21 employees’ lack of training and failure to adhere to CDCR policy. Again, these allegations are 22 too vague and conclusory to survive screening as it is not clear how St. Andre personally 23 participated in a violation of plaintiff’s rights. Rather, plaintiff seems to have named St. Andre as 24 a defendant simply because of his role as a supervisor, which is not a proper basis for liability. 25 See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 26 In Claim III, plaintiff alleges he was seen on April 5, 2022 by defendant nurse Kersh. 27 Kersh told plaintiff that there was no record of him having a medical chrono for waist chains. 28 ///// 1 She also refused to document plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff claims she violated CDCR values. 2 Plaintiff’s injuries were ultimately documented by correctional officer Lee and another nurse. 3 Plaintiff purports to bring an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs 4 claim against Kersh. Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendant, acting with a 5 state of mind more blameworthy than negligence, denied, delayed, or interfered with the 6 treatment of plaintiff's serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); 7 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The indifference to medical needs must be 8 substantial; mere malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not constitute cruel and unusual 9 punishment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. In any amended complaint, plaintiff must plead facts 10 showing that Kersh responded to his serious medical needs with deliberate indifference. 11 Leave to Amend 12 Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint 13 must allege a cognizable legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of 14 that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 15 (district courts must afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in 16 their complaints). Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint 17 shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. The amended complaint 18 must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new, unrelated claims. Further, the 19 amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above and also adhere to the following 20 requirements: 21 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 22 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 23 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 24 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 25 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption 26 including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 27 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 28 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 1 | complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 2 | earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 3 || F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 4 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 5 | 1967)). 6 Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 7 || Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 8 || See Local Rule 110. 9 Conclusion 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted. 12 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 13 in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 14 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 15 3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Failure to comply 16 with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 17 | Dated: June 29, 2022.
> 19 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 30 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28