(PC) Goodlow v. Gomez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN GOODLOW, Case No. 1:23-cv-00662-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ACTION 14 GOMEZ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 15 Defendant. CLAIMS 16 (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 6) 17 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 18 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff Ivan Goodlow (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 On June 13, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated 23 a cognizable claim against Defendant A. Gomez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 24 Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 5.) The Court ordered 25 Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed 26 only on the cognizable claims identified by the Court. (Id.) On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff notified 27 the Court that he did not wish to file a first amended complaint and was willing to proceed only 28 on the cognizable claim against Defendant A. Gomez identified by the Court. (ECF No. 6.) 1 II. Screening Requirement and Standard 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 3 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 5 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 6 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 8 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 9 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 11 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 12 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 13 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 15 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 16 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 17 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 18 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 19 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 20 A. Allegations in Complaint 21 Plaintiff is currently housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, in San Diego, 22 California. Plaintiff alleges the events in the complaint occurred while he was housed at 23 California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. Plaintiff names A. Gomez, B-yard 24 Correctional Officer, as the sole defendant. Plaintiff alleges as follows: 25 On Sept. 14 or 15 of 2022, I was going to thru depression an [sic] anxiety, an [sic] felt suicidal, so on Sept. 14 or 15, 2022 I told (A. Gomez) I felt suicidal, he ignored 26 me about an hour. I expressed to him that the prison I felt was discriminatory towards me. He then pulled me out of the cell in B-yard about an hour or two 27 hours later in handcuffs to [unintelligible] me in the corridor or hallway or 28 something like, then grabbed me by the throat choking me hard with severe 1 pressure for 5 seconds, saying “I could do more, but I am not,” he said. I was out of breath. Then I was taken out of the building to the suicide part, where I 2 screamed calling A. Gomez a racist. So they put me in a holding cell for about an hour, then B. Anderson put me on camera for excessive force, and put the 3 (camcorder) on picture angleing [sic] on my neck (and then I end up going suicidal 4 the same day where I was [unintelligent] suicide watch for about a day, then they transferred me out on suicidal to (North Kern) to remain on suicidal because of my 5 psychiatric issue. 6 7 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff says he was physically and emotionally harmed, and it was traumatizing. 8 B. Discussion 9 1. Eighth Amendment – Excessive Force 10 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 11 from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 12 2006). The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 13 Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) 14 (citations omitted). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must 15 provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. 16 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–33 (1994) (quotations omitted). 17 For claims of excessive physical force, the issue is “whether force was applied in a good- 18 faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 19 Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Relevant factors for this consideration include “the extent of injury . . . [,] 20 the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, 21 the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ and ‘any efforts made to temper the 22 severity of a forceful response.’” Id. (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 1078, 1085 (1986)). 23 Although de minimis uses of force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use 24 of force to cause harm always violates the Eighth Amendment, regardless of whether or not 25 significant injury is evident. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9–10; Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th 26 Cir. 2002). 27 At the pleading stage, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant A. Gomez for 28 choking Plaintiff. 1 2. Equal Protection 2 The Equal Protection Clause requires the State to treat all similarly situated people 3 equally. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). This does not 4 mean, however, that all prisoners must receive identical treatment and resources. See Cruz v. 5 Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n.2 (1972); Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 1993); Allen v. 6 Toombs, 827 F.2d 563, 568–69 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 “To prevail on an Equal Protection claim brought under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege facts 8 plausibly showing that ‘ “the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against 9 [them] based upon membership in a protected class,’ ” (citing Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 10 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005)) (quoting Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001)), 11 or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a rational 12 relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601–02 13 (2008); Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 14 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th 15 Cir. 2008). 16 To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to allege an equal protection claim for “racist” conduct, 17 Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable equal protection claim. Plaintiff does not allege that he was 18 discriminated against because of his membership in any protected class. He also does not allege 19 factual support that he was intentionally treated differently than other similarly situated inmates 20 without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Plaintiff has not provided any factual 21 support for this claim. Fletcher v. Clendenin, No. 1:22-CV-00249 AWI BAM, 2022 WL 22 2791480, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2022) (Equal Protection claim dismissed for failure to allege 23 factual support for denial of treatment based on membership in a protected class). 24 3. Verbal Harassment 25 To the extent Plaintiff claims a violation of rights due to A. Gomez’s threats, Plaintiff fails 26 to state a cognizable claim for threats. Allegations of name-calling, verbal abuse, or threats 27 generally fail to state a constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel 28 and unusual punishment. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[V]erbal 1 harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment.”), opinion amended on denial of 2 reh’g, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) 3 (holding that a prisoner’s allegations of threats allegedly made by guards failed to state a cause of 4 action). Even in cases concerning “abusive language directed at [a plaintiff’s] religious and 5 ethnic background, ‘verbal harassment or abuse is not sufficient to state a constitutional 6 deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.’ ” Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) 7 (quoting Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987)) (alterations omitted), 8 abrogated on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008). However, verbal 9 harassment may violate the constitution when it is “unusually gross even for a prison setting and 10 [is] calculated to and [does] cause [plaintiff] psychological damage.” Cox v. Kernan, 2019 WL 11 6840136, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting Keenan, 83 F.3d 1083 12 at 1092). 13 4. Housing 14 In general, prison officials’ housing and classification decisions do not give rise to federal 15 constitutional claims encompassed by the protection of liberty and property guaranteed by the 16 Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242 (1976) (It is well 17 settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, to any 18 particular security classification, or to any particular housing assignment.); accord King v. Lemos, 19 No. 1:20-CV-01837-NONE-BAM (PC), 2021 WL 2038187, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2021); 20 Sanford v. Eaton, No. 1:20-CV-00792 JLT BAM PC, 2022 WL 1308193, at *9 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 21 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-00792 JLT BAM PC, 2022 WL 22 2181782 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2022) (no right to stop transfer). 23 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 24 Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim 25 against Defendant A. Gomez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 26 However, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any other cognizable claims. 27 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to randomly assign a 28 District Judge to this action. 1 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 1, 2023, (ECF No. 1), against 3 Defendant A. Gomez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 4 2. All other claims be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims upon which relief 5 may be granted. 6 * * * 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 9 being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 10 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 11 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 12 time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 13 appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 14 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: June 23, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28