(PC) Humphrey v. Yates, No. 1:2009cv00075 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending Dismissal of Certain Claims; Objections, if any, Due Within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/27/2009. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 11/30/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Humphrey v. Yates Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 IRVING G. HUMPHREY, Case No. 1:09-cv-00075-LJO-DLB (PC) 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 JAMES A. YATES, et al., (Doc. 13) 12 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS Defendants. 13 / 14 15 I. Findings and Recommendations 16 Plaintiff Irving G. Humphrey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 13, 2009, Defendant James A. 18 Yates removed Plaintiff’s action from Fresno Superior Court. (Doc. 1.) On April 24, 2009, the 19 Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to file a second 20 amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 9.) On June 1, 2009, after receiving an extension 21 of time, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. (Doc. 13.) 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 24 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 25 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 26 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 28 paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 3 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 5 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 6 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 7 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must 8 set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its 9 face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations 10 are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 11 II. Summary of Second Amended Complaint 12 Plaintiff is currently housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) in Coalinga, 13 California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants the 14 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Matthew 15 Cate, Warden James A. Yates, and classification service representative T. Wardlow. 16 Plaintiff alleges the following. On September 2, 2003, Plaintiff was received at PVSP. 17 Plaintiff was not given any warnings regarding the dangerous conditions at PVSP, namely the 18 presence of the fungus which causes coccidiomyosis, also known as valley fever. Plaintiff was 19 exposed to and contracted valley fever on or about November 25, 2005. Valley fever caused 20 Plaintiff to suffer serious flu like symptoms, including fever, chills, night sweats, and labored 21 breathing. Plaintiff at one required transport to the emergency room. Plaintiff already has 22 impaired respiratory functions because he has pre-existing lung cancer, which resulted in the 23 removal of the lower lobe of Plaintiff’s right lung. On or around August 3, 2006, a memorandum 24 was issued from the CDCR to all wardens regarding valley fever. On or about October 28, 2007, 25 Plaintiff filed a 602 inmate appeal requesting a transfer from PVSP to another facility. Plaintiff 26 alleges that he contracted valley fever a second time. 27 Plaintiff alleges violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Eighth Amendment, and 28 California Government Code section 830. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Because Plaintiff 2 1 has not alleged compliance with California’s Torts Claims Act, Plaintiff’s state law claim is 2 dismissed from this action.1 3 III. Discussion 4 1. 5 The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated Equal Protection 6 alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). An equal 7 protection claim may be established in two ways. First, a plaintiff establishes an equal 8 protection claim by showing that the defendant has intentionally discriminated on the basis of the 9 plaintiff's membership in a protected class. See, e.g., Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 10 686 (9th Cir.2001). Under this theory of equal protection, the plaintiff must show that the 11 defendants’ actions were a result of the plaintiff’s membership in a suspect class, such as race. 12 Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005). 13 If the action in question does not involve a suspect classification, a plaintiff may establish 14 an equal protection claim by showing that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated 15 differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Village of Willowbrook 16 v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 17 (1972); Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir.2004); 18 SeaRiver Mar. Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir. 2002). To state an equal 19 protection claim under this theory, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) the plaintiff is a member of an 20 identifiable class; (2) the plaintiff was intentionally treated differently from others similarly 21 situated; and (3) there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Village of 22 Willowbrook, 528 U.S. at 564. If an equal protection claim is based upon the defendant’s 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 California’s Tort Claims Act requires that a tort claim against a public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, formerly known as the State Board of Control, no more than six months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950-950.2 (West 2008). Presentation of a written claim, and action on or rejection of the claim are conditions precedent to suit. State v. Superior Court of Kings County (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245, 90 P.3d 116, 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 543 (2004); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a tort claim against a public employee, a plaintiff must allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act. State v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th at 1245, 90 P.3d at 124, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d at 543; Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1477; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 1 selective enforcement of a valid law or rule, a plaintiff must show that the selective enforcement 2 is based upon an “impermissible motive.” Squaw Valley, 375 F.3d at 944; Freeman v. City of 3 Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir.1995). 4 Plaintiff claims that he was deprived of equal protection of the law. However, Plaintiff 5 fails to identify what identifiable class he is a member of, how he was treated differently from 6 others similarly situated, or that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. 7 Plaintiff’s conclusion that he was deprived of equal protection is not sufficient to state a claim. 8 2. 9 To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison Eighth Amendment 10 conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. 11 Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, 12 prison officials must provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and 13 personal safety. Id.; Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. 14 Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from 15 unsafe conditions of confinement, prison officials may be held liable only if they acted with 16 “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 17 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 18 The deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, 19 the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer v. 20 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, 21 the prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . 22 . .” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Thus, a prison official may be held liable under the Eighth 23 Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a 24 substantial risk of harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. 25 Id. at 837-45. Prison officials may avoid liability by presenting evidence that they lacked 26 knowledge of the risk, or by presenting evidence of a reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, response to 27 the risk. Id. at 844-45. Mere negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to 28 establish liability, but rather, the official’s conduct must have been wanton. Id. at 835; Frost, 152 4 1 F.3d at 1128. 2 Here, Plaintiff’s allegation against Defendant Wardlow appears to be based solely on 3 Wardlow’s alleged action of endorsing Plaintiff for transfer to PVSP. Plaintiff’s allegations that 4 any defendants knew of valley fever’s presence and danger prior to Plaintiff’s transfer does not 5 meet the plausibility standard of Iqbal. Plaintiff makes no allegations against Defendant Cate, 6 and thus fails to state a claim against him. Under § 1983, Plaintiff is required to show that (1) 7 each defendant acted color of state law nd (2) each defendant deprived him of rights secured by 8 the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 9 2006.)2 10 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Yates knew of the coccidiomycosis at PVSP yet failed to 11 warn any inmates of the risk of injury or harm. Based on the allegations, the warden was notified 12 of the dangers of valley fever after August 3, 2006, when the memorandum regarding valley 13 fever was issued. Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that he was transferred to PVSP on September 14 2, 2003. Plaintiff’s arrival at PVSP and Plaintiff’s subsequent contraction of valley fever is not 15 enough indicate that Defendant Yates knew that Plaintiff would contract valley fever upon 16 arrival, or that Defendant Yates knew of the danger of valley fever upon Plaintiff’s arrival. 17 However, Plaintiff further alleges that he contracted PVSP twice and, because of his pre- 18 existing respiratory conditions, is susceptible to contracting valley fever again. Plaintiff alleges 19 that he requested a medical transfer on October 2007 from Defendant Yates and other PVSP 20 officials to a prison outside of valley fever exposure, but no transfer occurred. Plaintiff alleges 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 If Plaintiff was alleging liability against Defendant Cate on a respondeat superior theory, Plaintiff also fails to state a claim. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief under § 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts that would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts that indicate Defendant Cate personally participated in the constitutional deprivation, knew of the violations and failed to act, or implemented a policy so deficient that the policy is itself a repudiation of constitutional rights and the moving force of the violation. 5 1 that Defendant Yates did learn of the danger of valley fever. Under a liberal construction of the 2 pleadings, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference against Defendant 3 Yates. Because Defendant Yates has already appeared in this proceeding, he is granted twenty 4 days within which to respond to the second amended complaint after the Findings and 5 Recommendations have been resolved. 6 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS the following: 8 1. 9 10 claim upon which relief may be granted; 2. 11 12 Plaintiff’s equal protection and state law claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; 3. 13 14 Defendants Cate and Wardlow are dismissed from this action for failure to state a This action proceed against Defendant James A. Yates for violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 4. Defendant Yates is granted twenty (20) days from the date the Court’s Findings 15 and Recommendations is resolved in which to file a response to the second 16 amended complaint. 17 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 19 thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 20 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file 22 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 23 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a October 27, 2009 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
