(PC) Brown v. Porter ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, No. 2:20-cv-00167 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. PORTER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 23 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 2 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 3 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & 6 (2). Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is before the court for screening. 7 The court finds that this case may proceed against defendant Porter for a deliberate 8 indifference claim arising under the Eighth Amendment. With respect to the other defendants 9 identified in plaintiff’s complaint, the facts alleged fail to state actionable claims. Plaintiff has 10 two options: 1) he may proceed on the claim described above; or 2) make an attempt to cure the 11 deficiencies in his complaint with respect to the other defendants and claims in an amended 12 complaint. 13 If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, plaintiff should consider that in order to 14 state an actionable claim, plaintiff must demonstrate with specific allegations how the conditions 15 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 16 The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the prisoner is 17 confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual 18 punishment. Prison officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, 19 medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). 20 But conditions of confinement may be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 21 337, 347 (1981). 22 In order for a prison official to be held liable for alleged unconstitutional conditions of 23 confinement, the prisoner must allege facts that satisfy a two-prong test. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 24 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The first prong is an objective 25 prong, which requires that the deprivation be “sufficiently serious.” Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. 26 & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). In order to be 27 sufficiently serious, the prison official’s “act or omission must result in the denial of the ‘minimal 28 civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Lemire at 1074. The objective prong is not satisfied in 1 cases where prison officials provide prisoners with “adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, 2 medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 3 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982)). “[R]outine discomfort inherent in the 4 prison setting” does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 5 at 732 (“[m]ore modest deprivations can also form the objective basis of a violation, but only if 6 such deprivations are lengthy or ongoing”). Rather, extreme deprivations are required to make 7 out a conditions of confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized 8 measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment 9 violation. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). The 10 circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivations are critical in determining whether the 11 conditions complained of are grave enough to form the basis of a viable Eighth Amendment 12 claim. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d at 731. 13 The second prong focuses on the subjective intent of the prison official. Peralta, 774 F.3d 14 at 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The deliberate indifference standard 15 requires a showing that the prison official acted or failed to act despite the prison official’s 16 knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to the prisoner. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 17 842); see also Redman v. Cnty. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1439 (9th Cir. 1991). Mere 18 negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability. Farmer, 511 19 U.S. at 835. 20 In any amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named 21 defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some 22 affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo 23 v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 24 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 25 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 26 Finally, plaintiff is informed that if he elects to amend, the court cannot refer to a prior 27 pleading in order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an 28 amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, 2 EUV EY EO INE MMV UOT EIR EN PAY TE VS 1 | asa general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 2 | 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 3 | complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, each 4 | claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 6 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and 7 2. Plaintiff is granted 21 days within which to complete and return the attached form 8 | notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment 9 | against defendant Porter, or whether he wishes to file an amended complaint in an attempt to cure 10 | the deficiencies in his original complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, this action will 11 || proceed on the claim described above. at. org, 2 Dated: April 15, 2020 ea nd it. { ay CAROLYN K. DELANEY 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 2/brown0167.op 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, No. 2:20-cv-00167 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 14 K. PORTER, et al., HOW TO PROCEED 15 Defendants. 16 17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on an Eighth Amendment claim against defendant 19 Porter. 20 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. 21 22 DATED: 23 24 ________________________________ Plaintiff 25 26 27 28