(PC) Cisneros v. Moreno et al, No. 1:2018cv00628 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: SCREENING ORDER; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff be Permitted to Proceed on Cognizable Claim and that Non-Cognizable Claims be Dismissed With Leave to Amend; ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign Case to District Judge - CASE ASSIGNED to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. New Case No. 1:18-cv-00628 LJO JDP (PC) 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 3/20/2019: 14-Day Objection Deadline. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CISNEROS, 12 13 v. 14 MORENO, et al., 15 Case No. 1:18-cv-00628-JDP Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND THAT NON-COGNIZABLE CLAIMS BE DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 16 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 14 DAYS 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 18 ECF No. 1 19 20 21 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 22 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 8, 2018, ECF No. 1, is before the court 23 for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court finds that plaintiff has stated a failure-to- 24 protect claim against defendant Moreno for violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. 25 The court will recommend that plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice and 26 that he be granted leave to amend the complaint. 27 28 1 1 I. SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS 2 A district court is required to screen a prisoner’s complaint seeking relief against a 3 governmental entity, its officer, or its employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 4 identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of a complaint that is frivolous or 5 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 6 defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011)). Instead, what 15 plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to 16 relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) 17 (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint only “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017) 22 (quoting Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)). THE COMPLAINT1 23 II. 24 Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 25 Facility, Corcoran (“SATF”). Id. at 1. Plaintiff names three defendants who are correctional 26 officers at SATF: Moreno, Lopez, and Doony. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s fourth named defendant is 27 28 The court draws the facts in this section from plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, and accepts them as true for screening purposes. 1 2 1 2 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Id. Plaintiff alleges: 3 On several occasions during the month of March 2018, I notified C/O Moreno that I was being threatened by an inmate by the name of MacCall. I told officer Moreno that the individual was threatening to do physical harm to me, and that I would like to be moved, or that Mr. MacCall should be moved. I kept being told that the situation would be handled and that I don’t have to worry about anything. However, on April 7th, 2018, I was jumped by MacCall and was seriously injured. I received stitches in [my] head, and bruises all over my body. After receiving medical attention to my injuries, I was then moved out of A-Yard, where the beating [occurred], to B-Yard. I was informed that inmate MacCall was taken to [administrative segregation] for the assault. The injuries I had received required me to be ambulatory removed from the scene to be treated. I had reported the abuse I was receiving from MacCall to several other officers, but to no resolution from any of them. Had the staff responded to my complaints and notification of the abuse and threats I was receiving from MacCall, I would not have the stitches in my head, nor the consistent headaches I am having. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Id. at 3. Plaintiff claims: “Civil Rights violation of equal protection. Discrimination, Abuse under color of Authority.” Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. Id. at 6. III. DISCUSSION A. Requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Section 1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a right secured by 21 federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 916 (2017). To 22 state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a defendant, while acting under color of 23 state law, personally participated in the deprivation of a right secured by federal law. See Soo 24 Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 2017). A defendant personally participates in a 25 deprivation “if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to 26 perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is 27 made.” Atayde v. Napa State Hosp., 255 F. Supp. 3d 978, 988 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting Lacey v. 28 Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915 (9th Cir. 2012)). Vague and conclusory allegations of 3 1 2 personal involvement in an alleged deprivation do not suffice. Id. “The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an 3 unconsenting state.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th 4 Cir. 1991) (internal citations omitted). This prohibition extends to state agencies and suits 5 seeking monetary damages for past injury. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 6 Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 7 (1984). Considering the foregoing, defendant CDCR is immune from suit under the Eleventh 8 Amendment, and we will recommend that the claim against CDCR be dismissed. 9 On the other hand, the three remaining defendants—state prison employees who can be 10 inferred to have acted under color of state law—are proper defendants. See Paeste v. Gov’t of 11 Guam, 798 F.3d 1228, 1238 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[G]enerally, a public employee acts under color of 12 state law while acting in his official capacity or while exercising his responsibilities pursuant to 13 state law.” (quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 50 (1988))). We next consider whether plaintiff 14 has alleged that each of these three defendants—Moreno, Lopez, and Doony—personally 15 participated in the alleged constitutional deprivations as required by § 1983. See Preschooler II, 16 479 F.3d at 1183. 17 Plaintiff plausibly alleges that defendant Moreno personally participated in the alleged 18 deprivations. Plaintiff contends that he told Moreno about the threats he was facing from 19 MacCall, and Moreno failed to protect plaintiff. 20 Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that defendants Lopez or Doony personally participated 21 in the alleged deprivations. Indeed, plaintiff makes no allegations against them at all. If these 22 defendants were involved in the situation plaintiff describes above, plaintiff must say so 23 explicitly. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend his complaint to cure this deficiency. 24 The remaining question is whether the defendant Moreno’s alleged actions violated 25 federal law. Plaintiff seeks to bring the following claims: “Civil Rights violation of equal 26 protection. Discrimination, Abuse under color of Authority.” ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff’s 27 allegations, as currently stated, do not state the claims he seeks to bring. However, the facts do 28 implicate a failure-to-protect claim under the Eighth Amendment, which we will consider below. 4 1 2 B. Failure to Protect in Violation of the Eighth Amendment “Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical 3 abuse.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by 4 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). 5 To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must prove that prison officials were 6 “deliberately indifferen[t]” to serious threats to his or her safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 7 To demonstrate that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to an inmate’s 8 safety, the prisoner must show that “the official [knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to 9 inmate . . . safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be 10 drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [the official] must also draw the 11 inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; see also Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th 12 Cir. 2016) (explaining that subjective deliberate indifference standard under the Eighth 13 Amendment is well established). To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner may rely 14 on circumstantial evidence; in fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to establish 15 knowledge. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 Here, the court finds that plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure-to- 17 protect claim against defendant Moreno. According to the complaint, plaintiff warned Moreno on 18 several occasions of threats he received from MacCall. Plaintiff further alleges that MacCall 19 acted on those threats by seriously injuring plaintiff. These allegations are sufficient to state a 20 claim against Moreno. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 The court has screened plaintiff’s complaint and finds that plaintiff states a failure-to- 23 protect claim against defendant Moreno. The court will recommend that plaintiff’s remaining 24 claims be dismissed without prejudice and that plaintiff be granted leave to amend the complaint. 25 Should plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, the amended complaint should be brief, 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of 27 plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 28 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a 5 1 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 2 at 570). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her 3 own misconduct. See id. at 677. Plaintiff must allege that each defendant personally participated 4 in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff should note 5 that a short, concise statement of the allegations in chronological order will assist the court in 6 identifying his claims. Plaintiff should name each defendant and explain what happened, 7 describing personal acts by the individual defendant that resulted in the violation of plaintiff’s 8 rights. Plaintiff should also describe any harm he suffered from the violation of his rights. 9 Plaintiff should not fundamentally alter his complaint or add unrelated issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 18; George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different 11 defendants belong in different suits . . . .”). 12 Any amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 13 County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete on its face 14 without reference to the prior, superseded pleading, see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an 15 amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 16 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement 17 of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be titled “First 18 Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under 19 penalty of perjury. 20 V. 21 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge, who will preside over 22 ORDER this case. The undersigned will remain as the magistrate judge assigned to the case. 23 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), all parties named in a civil action must consent to a 25 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction before that jurisdiction vests for “dispositive decisions.” Williams 26 v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2017). No defendant has appeared or consented to a 27 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, so any dismissal of a claim requires an order from a district judge. 28 Id. Thus, the undersigned submits the following findings and recommendations to a United 6 1 States District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l): 2 1. Plaintiff states a failure-to-protect claim against defendant Moreno. 3 2. Plaintiff’s remaining claims should be dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff 4 should be granted leave to amend the complaint. 5 3. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, defendant Moreno should not be required to 6 respond until the court screens the amended complaint. 7 Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 8 written objections with the court. If plaintiff files such objections, he should do so in a document 9 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 10 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 11 on appeal. See Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 12 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: 16 March 20, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 No. 203. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
