The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KEITH CANDLER, No. 2:19-CV-0394-MCE-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 E. PALKO,
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1).
19 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915A(a). On September 5, 2019, the court issued a screening order addressing plaintiff’s
22 claims. See ECF No. 9. The court summarized plaintiff’s allegations and claims as follows:
23 On July 26th, 2016, Plaintiff informed a correctional officer
that he felt suicidal. The officer placed Plaintiff in a small holding cell
24 under restraints and called the psychologist, Defendant E. Palko. Plaintiff
waited for four hours before Defendant arrived. When Defendant arrived,
25 three prison officials said Plaintiff was not suicidal. However, Plaintiff
told Defendant that he wanted to hang himself with a bedsheet.
26 Nevertheless, Defendant cleared Plaintiff and sent him back to his cell.
After Plaintiff returned to his cell, he made a noose from his bedsheets and
27 began to hang himself. An officer witnessed Plaintiff's actions and
intervened. The officer placed Plaintiff in handcuffs and returned him to
28 the small holding cell, where he remained for another four hours until
1 taken to a crisis center.
Plaintiff alleges the following claims: (1) Defendant
2 violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by demonstrating deliberate
indifference to his suicidal intentions; and (2) Defendant intentionally
3 inflicted emotional distress by forcing him to wait in a small holding under
restraint for several hours. Plaintiff does not specify which four-hour time
4 period he attributes to the Defendant's actions.
5 ECF No. 9, pg. 2.
6 The court found plaintiff states a cognizable claim for violation of plaintiff’s
7 Eighth Amendment rights. See id. at 4. Specifically, the court noted:
8 Here, Plaintiff alleges a cognizable claim against Defendant
for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Presuming the facts to be true
9 as the court must, the facts sufficiently demonstrate Defendant was
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's risk of serious injury. Plaintiff
10 informed Defendant of his suicidal thoughts and his plan to hang himself
with bedsheets; therefore, Defendant knew there was a substantial risk that
11 Plaintiff would commit suicide if sent back to his cell where he had access
to bedsheets. Furthermore, Plaintiff faced a risk of sufficiently serious
12 injury−death. Because the facts allege that Defendant was deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff's risk of death, Plaintiff's claim is appropriate for
13 service.
14 ECF No. 9, pg. 4.
15 The court, however, determined plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim against
16 defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See
17 id. at 4-5. The court concluded:
18 Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim that Defendant
intended to cause severe mental and emotional distress by making Plaintiff
19 wait in the small holding cell under restraints for several hours. It is
unclear whether Plaintiff intends to bring this claim under the Federal
20 Torts Claim Act (FTCA) or § 1983. It is also unclear which four-hour time
period Plaintiff attributes to the Defendant. Regardless of these
21 ambiguities, Plaintiff's claim is insufficient for two reasons.
First, under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner
22 cannot bring a claim under the FTCA for a mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without demonstrating physical injury. 28
23 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2). This also applies to claims premised on a mental or
emotional injury that are brought under § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
24 However, the physical injury requirement does not apply to claims made
under the First or Fourteenth Amendment. See Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d
25 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002) (Fourteenth Amendment claims); Canell v.
Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998) (First Amendment claims).
26 Because Plaintiff bases his claim upon inadequate medical care, this court
finds that Plaintiff does not allege any claims under the First or Fourteenth
27 Amendment. Plaintiff's claim fails the physical-injury requirement
because his complaint does not allege that he suffered any physical
28 injuries from Defendant's actions.
1 Second, Plaintiff's claim fails to establish a causal
connection between Defendant's actions and the alleged harm (waiting in a
2 holding cell during two separate four-hour periods of time). To state a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual
3 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the
alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658
4 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). "A person 'subjects' another
to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983,
5 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or
omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
6 deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,
743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the
7 involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not
sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
8 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each
defendant's causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer
9 v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that the long waits in the holding
10 cells caused severe emotional distress, which Defendant deliberately
inflicted. It is not clear whether Plaintiff refers to the first four-hour
11 period, the second, or both. Regardless, Plaintiff fails to plausibly establish
a cognizable claim. Even when taken in a light most favorable to him, the
12 alleged facts do not demonstrate a causal link between Defendant and the
circumstances that led to his emotional distress.
13 Regarding the initial four-hour period, no facts indicate that
Defendant had any control over Plaintiff's holding conditions, including
14 the size of the cell or the use of restraints. Furthermore, no facts support
the inference that Defendant's delay was wanton or malicious. To the
15 extent that Plaintiff's injuries stem from the second four-hour waiting
period, his pleading defect is even more evident. After Plaintiff tried to
16 commit suicide, a correctional officer placed him in the holding cell where
he waited several hours for a third party to arrive. He alleges no further
17 interaction with Defendant or ways that she influenced or controlled the
second holding period.
18
ECF No. 9, pgs. 4-6.
19
20 Plaintiff was provided leave to file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the
21 date of the court’s screening order. See id. at 6-7. Plaintiff was instructed that the action would
22 proceed on the original complaint if he failed to file a first amended complaint within the time
23 provided. See id. at 7. To date, plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint and by separate
24 order issued herewith the court has instructed plaintiff to submit documents necessary for service
25 of this action on defendant.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the District Judge adopt
2 | the conclusions reached in the September 5, 2019, screening order and dismiss plaintiff's Federal
3 | Tort Claims Act claim with prejudice.
4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
5 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
6 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections
7 | with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.
8 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v.
9 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11
12 | Dated: November 5, 2019 Ssvcqo_
13 DENNIS M. COTA
14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28