(PC) Duncan v. CHCF Warden ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, No. 2:24-cv-00775-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHCF WARDEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of 18 civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 22 I. Screening Requirement 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 25 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 28 ///// 1 II. Allegations in the Complaint 2 On May 17, 2023, while a prisoner at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”), 3 plaintiff was struck in the face by Officer Rivera, a defendant in this action. At the time, plaintiff 4 was stripped naked and handcuffed in a medical exam room waiting for placement on suicide 5 watch. Plaintiff mentions that there were four correctional officers in the medical exam room, but 6 he does not identify them. John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, both employed as sergeants, were 7 present outside the medical exam room during this assault. Plaintiff sustained injuries from this 8 assault. 9 Plaintiff was physically assaulted again on July 4, 2023 by defendant Rivera as well as 10 Officer Seohol, another defendant in this case. The second assault was even more brutal than the 11 first and resulted in a broken rib. 12 On another occasion, defendant Rivera identified plaintiff as a “snitch” to another inmate 13 exposing him to a risk of violence. 14 Additional defendants named in this action are Officer Johnson, Officer McCloud, John 15 Does #3 and #4, both employed as supervisors, and the unnamed Warden of CHCF. The 16 complaint does not describe how these defendants were involved in the assaults on plaintiff. 17 III. Analysis 18 Having conducted the required screening with respect to plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 19 1), the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on the Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 20 against defendants Rivera and Seohol. 21 With respect to the other claims and defendants, the allegations do not amount to claims 22 upon which plaintiff may proceed. The complaint is not clear as to who the remaining 23 correctional officers in the medical exam room were during the first assault, and the court will not 24 assume their identities as either the four named correctional officers or the four John Doe 25 defendants in this case. In order to state a claim, plaintiff must adequately link the actions of each 26 defendant to the asserted constitutional violation. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 27 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Moreover, plaintiff has failed to 28 adequately allege any claim against the John Doe supervisory defendants or the warden based 1 solely on their supervisory status. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). 2 At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) proceed immediately on the excessive force 3 claims identified above; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint by filing an 4 amended complaint. 5 IV. Legal Standards 6 In considering whether to amend, the court provides plaintiff with the following legal 7 standards which may apply to his claims. 8 A. Linkage Requirement 9 The civil rights statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 10 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 11 Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 12 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects' another to the deprivation of a 13 constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 14 in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 15 causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 16 Cir. 1978) (citation omitted). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must 17 link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 18 plaintiff's federal rights. 19 B. Supervisory Liability 20 Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their 21 subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) 22 (“In a § 1983 suit ... the term “supervisory liability” is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, 23 each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding is only liable for his or her own 24 misconduct.”). When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between 25 the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged; that is, a 26 plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either personally participated in or 27 directed the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act 28 to prevent them. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). 2 C. Failure to Protect 3 Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from 4 violence….” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, 5 and citation omitted). A prison official may be held liable for an assault suffered by one inmate 6 at the hands of another only where the assaulted inmate can show that the injury is sufficiently 7 serious, and that the prison official was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm. Id. at 834, 8 837. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether prison officials, “acting with deliberate indifference, 9 exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to his future health.” Id. at 10 834 (internal quotation omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, the “official must both be aware 11 of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, 12 and he must also draw the inference.” Id. 13 D. Retaliation 14 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five 15 basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 16 because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's 17 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 18 correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 19 Filing an inmate grievance is a protected action under the First Amendment. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 20 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 2003). A prison transfer may also constitute an adverse action. See 21 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing an arbitrary confiscation and 22 destruction of property, initiation of a prison transfer, and assault as retaliation for filing inmate 23 grievances); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that a retaliatory prison 24 transfer and double-cell status can constitute a cause of action for retaliation under the First 25 Amendment). 26 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 8) are granted. 28 2. Plaintiff is granted 21 days within which to complete and return the attached form 1 | notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the claims identified in this order or file an 2 || amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his original complaint. If plaintiff 3 | does not return the form, this action will proceed on the excessive force claims described above, 4 | and the undersigned will recommend dismissing the remaining claims and defendants. S | Dated: 09/12/24 Card ft | i &e (a. — 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 12/dunc0775.option 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 11 DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, No. 2:24-cv-00775-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 14 CHCF WARDEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on the excessive force claims against defendants 19 Rivera and Seohol. 20 OR 21 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. 22 DATED: 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff’s Signature 28