(PC) Vandagriff v. Hill ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG LEE VANDAGRIFF, No. 2:22-cv-0603 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RICK M. HILL, Warden, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983, and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is 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 this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 Screening Standards 4 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 6 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 15 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 16 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 17 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 18 1227. 19 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 20 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 21 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 22 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 23 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 24 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 25 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 26 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 27 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 28 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 1 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 2 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 3 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 4 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 5 The Civil Rights Act 6 To prevail on a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a 7 federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person 8 acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. 9 Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil 10 rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional 11 deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged 12 constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. 13 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the 14 theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. 15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a 16 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be 17 established in a number of ways, including by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable 18 action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates was a cause of 19 plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). 20 Plaintiff’s Allegations 21 Although he claims his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, plaintiff 22 alleges he is bringing a “complaint for negligence by custody” concerning the COVID-19 23 pandemic that caused plaintiff to contract the virus by such negligence. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 24 Folsom State Prison (“FSP”) is not honoring the 137.5% Capacity population cap imposed in the 25 Plata/Coleman class action of which he is a member. And, FSP-custody was negligent in not 26 detecting FSP-medical’s incompetence for not testing vaccinated persons for COVID-19. Finally, 27 CDCR/FSP has a constitutional duty to protect plaintiff from the deadly virus, but did not do so. 28 As injury, plaintiff alleges that CDCR/defendant deliberately infected plaintiff with COVID-19 1 and failed to protect plaintiff from contracting COVID-19. Plaintiff names only Warden Hill as a 2 defendant and seeks money damages. 3 Discussion 4 First, in the body of his complaint, plaintiff referred to the CDCR and CDCR/FSP as a 5 defendant. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private 6 parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See 7 Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); 8 Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of 9 California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against the CDCR and FSP 10 are frivolous and must be dismissed. 11 Second, plaintiff includes no specific charging allegations as to defendant Warden Hill. 12 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to sue Warden Hill based solely upon his supervisory role, 13 plaintiff may not do so. As set forth above, liability may not be imposed on supervisory 14 personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeat 15 superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77. Plaintiff also refers to FSP-Custody, but names no 16 individual who works in custody at Folsom State Prison as a defendant herein. 17 Third, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim based on negligence. The 18 Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety 19 of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In particular, prison officials 20 have an affirmative duty to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates. See id. at 21 833. To establish a violation of a prison official’s duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates 22 from physical abuse, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were “deliberately 23 indifferent” to serious threats to the inmate’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “Mere negligence 24 is not sufficient to establish liability.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 Rather, a plaintiff must set forth facts to show that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an 26 excessive risk to inmate safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. That is, “the official must both be 27 aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 28 exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. To prove knowledge of the risk, the prisoner 1 may rely on circumstantial evidence; in fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to 2 establish knowledge. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. 3 COVID-19 does pose a substantial risk of serious harm. See Plata v. Newsom, 445 4 F.Supp.3d 557, 559 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) (“[N]o one questions that [COVID-19] poses a 5 substantial risk of serious harm” to prisoners.). That said, in order to state a cognizable Eighth 6 Amendment claim, plaintiff must provide more than generalized allegations that the defendants 7 have not done enough regarding overcrowding or prison movement or housing assignment to 8 control the spread. See Booth v. Newsom, 2020 WL 6741730, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020); 9 see Blackwell v. Covello, 2021 WL 915670, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021) (failure to state a 10 claim against warden for failure to adequately control the spread of COVID-19 in the prison); 11 Benitez v. Sierra Conservation Ctr., Warden, 2021 WL 4077960, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021), 12 report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4593841 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021) (failed to state a 13 claim on allegations that overcrowding/lack of distance between inmates has exacerbated the 14 conditions leading to transmission of COVID. Plaintiff alleges that there is no way to socially 15 distance, among other conditions.); Sanford v. Eaton, 2021 WL 3021447, at *7 (E.D. Cal. July 16 16, 2021), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, 2022 WL 168530 (E.D. 17 Cal. Jan. 19, 2022 (in order to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against the warden, 18 associate wardens and any other defendants named, plaintiff must provide more than generalized 19 allegations that the warden, associate wardens and other defendants have not done enough 20 regarding overcrowding to control the spread.) 21 The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 22 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. In 23 light of his allegations based on negligence, it is unclear plaintiff can amend his complaint to state 24 a cognizable civil rights claim. In an abundance of caution, the court grants plaintiff leave to file 25 an amended complaint. 26 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 27 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 28 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 1 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 2 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 3 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 4 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 5 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 6 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff must list each individual named as a defendant both in the caption 7 of his amended complaint, as well as in the defendant section of his amended complaint. 8 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 9 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 10 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 11 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 12 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 13 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 14 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 15 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 16 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 17 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 19 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 20 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 22 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 23 herewith. 24 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 25 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 26 Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 27 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 28 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 1 | Plaintiffs amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 2 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 3 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 4 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 5 || dismissal of this action. 6 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights 7 || action by a prisoner. 8 | Dated: May 17, 2022 Foci) Aharon 10 sanao6os 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 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 CRAIG LEE VANDAGRIFF, No. 2:22-cv-0603 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 RICK M. HILL, Warden, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: 19 20 ________________________________ Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28