(PC) Powell v. Lynch ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL, No. 2:21-cv-00782-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 20 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 22 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 23 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 25 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 26 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 27 Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 1 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 2 stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 3 constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 4 Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 5 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 6 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 7 what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 8 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 9 “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 10 of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 11 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 12 to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 13 cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 14 speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 15 something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 16 cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 17 R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 18 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 19 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 20 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 21 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 22 misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 23 standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 24 Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 25 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 26 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 27 II. Complaint 28 At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff was a prisoner at 1 California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). Plaintiff names seven correctional officials as 2 defendants in this action including the warden, associate warden, several supervisory officials, 3 and two correctional officers employed at CSP-Sac. 4 On August 25, 2020, plaintiff submitted a 602 grievance to the warden and three other 5 supervisory defendants which informed them that inmates who were quarantined with COVID-19 6 were still using the dayroom phone and shower and that inadequate disinfecting supplies were 7 provided in plaintiff’s housing unit. This grievance was denied. In November of 2020, plaintiff 8 and 20 other inmates in the B5 housing unit tested positive for COVID-19. Plaintiff still suffers 9 from the lingering effects of COVID-19 including the loss of taste and energy, shortness of 10 breath, and body aches. 11 By way of relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, transfer to a prison in Orange 12 County, and his immediate release from CDCR custody. 13 III. Legal Standards 14 A. Linkage 15 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 16 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 17 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 18 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 19 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 20 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 21 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 22 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 23 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 24 plaintiff's federal rights. 25 B. Supervisory Liability 26 Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their 27 subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) 28 (“In a § 1983 suit ... the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, 1 each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding is only liable for his or her own 2 misconduct.”). When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between 3 the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged; that is, a 4 plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either personally participated in or 5 directed the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act 6 to prevent them. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 7 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). 8 C. Grievances 9 The existence of a prison grievance procedure establishes a procedural right only and 10 “does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 11 (8th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance 13 procedure). This means that a prison official’s action in reviewing an inmate grievance cannot 14 serve as a basis for liability under Section 1983. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. “Only persons who 15 cause or participate in the violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an 16 administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation. A guard who stands and 17 watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the Constitution; a guard who rejects an 18 administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not.” George v. Smith, 507 19 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). 20 D. Unsafe Conditions of Confinement 21 In order for a prison official to be held liable for alleged unconstitutional conditions of 22 confinement, the prisoner must allege facts that satisfy a two-prong test. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 23 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The first prong is an objective 24 prong, which requires that the deprivation be “sufficiently serious.” Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. 25 & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). In order to be 26 sufficiently serious, the prison official’s “act or omission must result in the denial of the ‘minimal 27 civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074. The objective prong is not 28 satisfied in cases where prison officials provide prisoners with “adequate shelter, food, clothing, 1 sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2 2000) (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982)). “[R]outine discomfort 3 inherent in the prison setting” does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Johnson v. 4 Lewis, 217 F.3d at 732 (“[m]ore modest deprivations can also form the objective basis of a 5 violation, but only if such deprivations are lengthy or ongoing”). Rather, extreme deprivations 6 are required to make out a conditions of confinement claim, and only those deprivations denying 7 the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an 8 Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 9 (1992). The circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivations are critical in determining 10 whether the conditions complained of are grave enough to form the basis of a viable Eighth 11 Amendment claim. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d at 731. 12 The second prong focuses on the subjective intent of the prison official. Peralta, 774 F.3d 13 at 1082 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The deliberate indifference standard 14 requires a showing that the prison official acted or failed to act despite the prison official’s 15 knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to the prisoner. Id. (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 16 842); see also Redman v. Cnty. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1439 (9th Cir. 1991). Mere 17 negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability. Farmer, 511 18 U.S. at 835. 19 E. Available Remedies 20 Although it is not entirely clear, plaintiff appears to seek his immediate release from 21 prison or at least his transfer to a different prison. When a state prisoner challenges the legality of 22 his custody and the relief he seeks is the determination of his entitlement to an earlier or 23 immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus which plaintiff would seek 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 25 IV. Analysis 26 Having conducted the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that 27 plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any defendant named in the complaint. Plaintiff must 28 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 1 support plaintiff's claim. Id. A defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s administrative grievance is not 2 sufficient to state a claim for relief. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007). 3 Additionally, plaintiff fails to adequately link defendants Gomes, Camacho, and Peterson to the 4 alleged constitutional violation asserted in the complaint. For all these reasons, the complaint 5 must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 6 V. Leave to Amend 7 If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 8 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 9 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). The complaint must also allege in specific terms how each named 10 defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 11 There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or 12 connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 13 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 14 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 15 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 16 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 17 his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 18 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 19 amended complaint supersedes any prior complaints. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 20 1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 21 Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 22 in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, 23 any previous complaints no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended 24 complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 25 sufficiently alleged. 26 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 27 Since plaintiff is acting as his own attorney in this case, the court wants to make sure that 28 the words of this order are understood. The following information is meant to explain this order 1 | in plain English and is not intended as legal advice. 2 Your complaint will not be served because the facts you alleged are not enough to state a 3 || claim against any named defendant. A prison official’s denial of an administrative grievance is 4 || not, by itself, sufficient to state a constitutional violation. Additionally, the relief you seek may 5 || not be available via this civil rights action. 6 You may amend your complaint to try to fix these problems. Be sure to provide facts that 7 || show exactly what each defendant did to violate your rights or to cause a violation of your rights. 8 If you choose to file an amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to bring. 9 || Once an amended complaint is filed, the court will not look at any information in the original 10 || complaint. Any claims and information not in the amended complaint will not be 11 | considered. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 14 | U.S.C. § 1915A, and will not be served. 15 2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 16 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 17 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 18 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 19 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 20 | be dismissed. 21 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 22 | form used in this district. 23 || DATED: December 5, 2023 . 24 Ctlhter— Lane 5 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28