# (PC) Solorio v. Sullivan

> District Court, E.D. California · September 25, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022323

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** September 25, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022323

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing “under color of 22 state law”

## Opinion text

1
2
3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 ADRIAN SOLORIO, 1:19-cv-00688-NONE-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:

13 vs. (1) FILE A SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT;
14 W. SULLIVAN, et al.,
OR
15 Defendants.
(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE
16 DOES NOT WISH TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
17 AND IS INSTEAD WILLING TO
PROCEED ONLY WITH THE
18 EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS
19 OTTSMAN AND CHAVEZ FOUND
COGNIZABLE BY THE COURT
20
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
21

22
23 I. BACKGROUND
24 Adrian Solorio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
25 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
26 commencing this action on April 30, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Northern
27 District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On May 9, 2019, the case was transferred to this court.
28 (ECF No. 7.)
1 On August 17, 2020, the court screened the Complaint and found that Plaintiff states
2 cognizable claims against defendants Ottsman and Chavez for use of excessive force against
3 Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but no other claims. (ECF No. 17.) The court
4 issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the court
5 of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable excessive force claims against defendants
6 Ottsman and Chavez. (Id.)
7 On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before
8 the court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 18.)
9 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
10 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
11 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
12 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
13 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
14 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
15 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
16 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim
17 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
18 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
19 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
20 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
21 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
22 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken
23 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores,
24 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state
25 a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
26 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
27 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal
28 ///
1 conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this
2 plausibility standard. Id.
3 III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in
5 Tehachapi, California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and
6 Rehabilitation where the events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly took place.
7 Plaintiff names as defendants W. Sullivan (Warden), Lieutenant E. Barthelmes, Sergeant (Sgt.)
8 Clayton, Sgt. Gratokoski, Sgt. Cardenas, Correctional Officer (C/O) I. Ottsman, C/O V. Chavez,
9 Dr. Caldron, and S. Jeffrey (RN) (collectively, “Defendants”).
10 A summary of Plaintiff’s allegations follows:
11 Plaintiff has a mobility disability which affects his walking gait and balance. On August
12 10, 2018, Plaintiff was walking in the prison yard to the CCI library when defendants Sgt.
13 Clayton, Sgt. Gratokoski, and Sgt. Cardenas ordered Guard Officers I. Ottsman and V. Chavez
14 to approach Plaintiff and ask questions about his mobility by using discriminatory remarks about
15 Plaintiff’s balance and yelling obscenities, insults and jokes to cause Plaintiff harm. Defendants
16 collectively agreed to handcuff Plaintiff and took him to a secluded spot. Plaintiff was escorted
17 in handcuffs out of the yard and placed in a room next to medical by defendants Ottsman and
18 Chavez. There, Plaintiff was thrown to the floor and punched and kicked by defendants Ottsman
19 and Chavez for no reason. They said Plaintiff’s balance was not good and he may be intoxicated.
20 They continued with the severe physical brutality, but this time they were commanded with
21 instructions by Sergeants Clayton, Gratokoski, and Cardenas on how to cause more pain to
22 Plaintiff’s body. Plaintiff was severely harmed and bleeding from the nose. Plaintiff stopped
23 responding because of the concussion he suffered from the physical brutality. The same prison
24 guards intentionally denied and delayed Plaintiff’s access to medical treatment,. Even though he
25 was bleeding and bruised all over his body, he was escorted to his cell without medical treatment.
26 Plaintiff did not commit any offense or break any law. Defendants had assumed that
27 Plaintiff was intoxicated due to his mobility disability. Defendant Barthelmes was the Lieutenant
28 with zero tolerance who used physical brutality on inmates. That was his policy agreed to by
1 Warden Sullivan who was responsible for the operations of CCI prison guards and failed to
2 protect a disabled Plaintiff. Defendants discriminated and collectively acted against Plaintiff
3 with deliberate indifference.
4 Defendants Dr. Caldron and RN Jeffrey denied Plaintiff medical care for his serious
5 medical needs after the excessive force incident on August 10, 2018, in order to aid the prison
6 guards, and also erased Plaintiff’s medical records to help out their prison guard friends. Plaintiff
7 was bleeding from his nose, suffered a concussion, was bruised all over his body, and suffered
8 from terrible pain in his legs. Plaintiff was suffering from a disability to his legs due to a past
9 injury. He was a member of the Armstrong (Plata) protected class and was intentionally treated
10 differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.
11 Dr. Caldron and Nurse Jeffrey personally acted together to delay Plaintiff’s medical
12 treatment. Plaintiff immediately submitted a medical request which was ignored until August
13 21, 2018. Defendant Jeffrey was supposed to take a record of Plaintiff’ injuries, but he did not
14 do it in order to aid Defendants. He erased Plaintiff’s record and did not list Plaintiff’s injuries
15 on the CDCR 7362 request. Dr Caldron saw Plaintiff after all and recommended strong pain
16 medications, but told Plaintiff not to continue with the lawsuit process for his own good.
17 Defendant Lt. Barthelmes interviewed Plaintiff and told him the same thing, to stop the lawsuit.
18 Chief Deputy Warden B. Cates [not a defendant] sent a report to Warden W. Sullivan who did
19 nothing about his prison guards. Plaintiff was still receiving threats by Defendants at CCI.
20 Warden W. Sullivan failed to supervise or train the prison guards.
21 Defendant Lt. Barthelmes failed to protect Plaintiff and should have known that his prison
22 guards – defendants Clayton, Gratokoski, Cardenas, Ottsman, and Chavez -- used physical
23 brutality on Plaintiff creating an unreasonable risk of serious harm to Plaintiff who was disabled.
24 Defendants acted collectively and personally against Plaintiff with evil intent. Defendants
25 Ottsman and Chavez discriminated against Plaintiff for his mobility disability. All of the named
26 Defendants acted with deliberate indifference causing Plaintiff to suffer severe pain and
27 emotional distress.
28 ///
1 As relief, Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages,
2 and costs of suit.
3 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
4 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

5 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
6 be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
7 secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .
8

9 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
10 “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a
11 method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
12 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman v.
13 Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d
14 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v.
15 Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). “To the extent that the violation of a state law
16 amounts to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the
17 federal Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id.
18 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under
19 color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him or her of rights secured by the Constitution
20 or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also
21 Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of
22 state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983,
23 ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act
24 which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’”
25 Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting
26 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “The requisite causal connection may be
27 established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or
28 reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.” Preschooler II, 479
1 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743). This standard of causation “closely resembles
2 the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp.,
3 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010,
4 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
5 A. Personal Participation
6 Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally
7 participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)
8 (emphasis added). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant, through his or her own
9 individual actions, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77.
10 In the court’s prior screening order, issued on September 11, 2020, Plaintiff was
11 cautioned not to refer to conduct or actions by “Defendants” as a group and advised to focus on
12 individual named Defendants’ actions to show that each Defendant personally acted against him.
13 Plaintiff has not followed this advice in the First Amended Complaint. He alleges that
14 Defendants “collectively” acted or made decisions, “collectively” told the correctional officers
15 how to cause pain to Plaintiff when attacking Plaintiff, and “collectively” denied Plaintiff medical
16 care. Plaintiff cannot state a claim against Defendants in this manner. Plaintiff must name each
17 defendant individually and explain what that one defendant said or did that caused a violation of
18 Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” acts
19 which caused a deprivation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); see
20 also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
21 Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to cure the
22 deficiencies in his claims.
23 B. Excessive Force – Eighth Amendment
24 What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual
25 Punishments Clause [of the Eighth Amendment] depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson
26 v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim
27 is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. (internal quotation
28 marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always
1 violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is
2 evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth Amendment
3 excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries)). However,
4 not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Id. at 9.
5 “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes
6 from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force
7 is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations marks
8 and citations omitted).
9 “[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation
10 of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was
11 applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to
12 cause harm.” Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it
13 may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that
14 need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,
15 and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. (internal quotation marks
16 and citations omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant to the Eighth Amendment
17 inquiry, but does not end it.” Id.
18 The court finds that Plaintiff states cognizable claims against defendants Ottsman and
19 Chavez for use of excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
20 Plaintiff may be able to state claims for excessive force against Defendants Clayton,
21 Gratokoski, and Cardenas for allegedly ordering Ottsman and Chavez to use of excessive force,
22 but Plaintiff has not as yet alleged facts demonstrating what each of the Sergeants said or did to
23 encourage the excessive force against Plaintiff. The required causal connection between
24 supervisor conduct and the deprivation of a constitutional right is established either by direct
25 personal participation, or by setting in motion a “series of acts by others which the actor knows
26 or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” Johnson, 588
27 F.2d at 743-44. Here, there are no facts explaining how Warden Sullivan could have protected
28 Plaintiff from the attack, such as when Chief Deputy Warden B. Cates sent to Warden Sullivan
1 a report about the attack on Plaintiff—nor facts about what was contained in the report. If the
2 report was not sent to Sullivan until after the attack, the report was of no use to protect Plaintiff
3 from the attack. To state a claim for excessive force against the Sergeants, Plaintiff must allege
4 what each of them said or did to set the excessive force incident in motion. Plaintiff shall be
5 granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint stating facts, about what each Sergeant, by
6 name, did. Plaintiff must describe what he saw or heard.
7 C. Medical Claim – Eighth Amendment
8 “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate
9 must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
10 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two-part test for
11 deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by
12 demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury
13 or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need
14 was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,
15 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,
16 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown
17 by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm
18 caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Deliberate indifference
19 may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical
20 treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id.
21 Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to
22 further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical
23 needs. Id. at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407
24 (9th Cir. 1985)).
25 “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
26 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the
27 facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but
28 that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
1 825, 837 (1970). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the
2 official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting
3 Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). “A showing of
4 medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under
5 the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 1060. “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a
6 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)).
7 “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities
8 regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337,
9 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, a plaintiff “must show that the course
10 of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . .
11 that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.”
12 Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).
13 Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable medical claim against any of the Defendants. Plaintiff
14 has shown that he had a serious medical need because he alleges that he suffered a concussion,
15 injury to his legs, a bloody nose, and other injuries. However, Plaintiff fails to show that
16 defendant Dr. Caldron or defendant Jeffrey knew about his injuries, understood that he was at
17 substantial risk of serious harm to his health, and yet consciously disregarded the risk or
18 otherwise acted unreasonably, causing Plaintiff injury. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied
19 medical care, but then he alleges that Dr. Caldron saw him and recommended strong pain
20 medications. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Jeffrey erased Plaintiff’s medical record,
21 which, without more, does not support a medical claim.
22 The court requires more information before Plaintiff can state a cognizable medical claim.
23 How did Plaintiff know the nurse erased medical records to help his friends? What did the doctor
24 and nurse do that delayed Plaintiff’s medical care? How does Plaintiff know that each of them
25 knew about his injuries and the serious risk to Plaintiff’s health, and how was their response
26 unreasonable?
27 Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a medical claim against any of the Defendants.
28 ///
1 ///
2 D. Equal Protection -- Discrimination
3 The Equal Protection Clause requires the State to treat all similarly situated people
4 equally. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87
5 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). This does not mean, however, that all prisoners must receive identical
6 treatment and resources. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 n. 2 (1972); Ward v. Walsh, 1 F.3d
7 873, 880 (9th Cir. 1993); Allen v. Toombs, 827 F.2d 563, 568–69 (9th Cir. 1987).
8 “To prevail on an Equal Protection claim brought under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege facts
9 plausibly showing that ‘“the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against
10 [them] based upon membership in a protected class,’” (citing see Thornton v. City of St. Helens,
11 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th
12 Cir. 2001)), or that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without a
13 rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agr., 553
14 U.S. 591, 601-02, 128 S.Ct. 2146 (2008); Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564,
15 120 S.Ct. 1073 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North
16 Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008).
17 Plaintiff is advised that mere verbal harassment or abuse, including the use of racial
18 epithets, does not violate the Constitution and, thus, does not give rise to a claim for relief under
19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). Even verbal
20 threats, without more, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Gaut v. Sunn, 810
21 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987).
22 Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing what was discriminatory about the attack against
23 him. What did each Defendant say or do that discriminated against Plaintiff? Plaintiff has not
24 alleged facts demonstrating that he was intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his
25 membership in a protected class, or that he was intentionally treated differently than other
26 similarly situated inmates, without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Therefore,
27 Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief for violation of his right to equal protection.
28 ///
1 ///
2 E. Failure to Protect
3 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Sullivan and Barthelmes failed to protect him from the
4 August 10, 2018 attack.
5 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and
6 from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.
7 2006). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide
8 prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer, 511
9 U.S. at 832-33 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty to take
10 reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d
11 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by
12 other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation where prison officials
13 know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S.
14 at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040.
15 To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were
16 “deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The
17 question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials, acting with deliberate
18 indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently “substantial risk of serious harm” to his future
19 health. Id. at 843 (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). The Supreme Court has
20 explained that “deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence . . . [but]
21 something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge
22 that harm will result.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. The Court defined this “deliberate indifference”
23 standard as equal to “recklessness,” in which “a person disregards a risk of harm of which he is
24 aware.” Id. at 836-37.
25 The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong.
26 First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Id. at 834.
27 Second, subjectively, the prison official must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate
28 health or safety.” Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995).
1 To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner may rely on circumstantial evidence; in
2 fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to establish knowledge. Farmer, 511 U.S.
3 at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995).
4 Plaintiff alleges that Lt. Barthelmes should have known that his prison guards –
5 defendants Clayton, Gratokoski, Cardenas, Ottsman, and Chavez -- used physical brutality on
6 Plaintiff. As for defendant Sullivan, Plaintiff alleges that he received a report from Chief Deputy
7 Warden B. Cates [not a defendant], and defendant Sullivan did nothing about his prison guards.
8 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to state a failure-to-protect claim against
9 defendant Sullivan, nor Lt. Barthelmes.
10 Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendant Barthelmes or defendant Sullivan
11 for failing to protect him from attack on August 10, 2018.
12 F. Armstrong Protected Class / ADA Claim
13 Plaintiff claims that he was a member of “the Armstrong (Plata) protected class,”
14 implying that this status offers him protection from discrimination. (1st Amended Compl., ECF
15 No. 18 at 5.) Armstrong v. Davis, 295 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) was brought by a class of
16 prisoners and parolees suffering from disabilities, and the Armstrong court found that the
17 California Board of Prison Terms regularly discriminated against disabled prisoners and parolees
18 during its parole and parole revocation hearing processes, which violated the Americans with
19 Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. In Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), the
20 United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of a three-judge district court requiring
21 California to reduce its prison population.
22 Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as
23 amended and codified in 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“RA”), prohibit discrimination on the basis of
24 a disability in the programs, services or activities of a public entity. The elements of a cause of
25 action under Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., are: (1) the plaintiff is an individual
26 with a disability; (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of
27 some public entity's services, programs, or activities; (3) the plaintiff was either excluded from
28 participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs or activities, or
1 was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of
2 benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff's disability. Thompson v. Davis, 295
3 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). A cause of action under § 504 of the RA essentially parallels an
4 ADA cause of action. See Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 590 (1999); Duvall v. County of
5 Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001).
6 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring an ADA claim against Defendants in this case,
7 Plaintiff’s claim fails because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he was subject to discrimination
8 on the basis of a disability in the programs, services or activities of a public entity.
9 G. State Law Claims
10 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Sullivan and Barthelmes failed to properly train and
11 supervise correctional officers and other prison personnel who were subordinate to them. These
12 are state law claims. Plaintiff is informed that violation of state tort law, state regulations, rules
13 and policies of the CDCR, or other state law is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under §
14 1983. Section 1983 does not provide a cause of action for violations of state law. See Galen v.
15 Cnty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007). To state a claim under § 1983, there
16 must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S.
17 693 (1976); also see Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Gonzaga
18 University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 279 (2002). Although the court may exercise supplemental
19 jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under
20 federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
21 Plaintiff is also advised that the Government Claims Act requires exhaustion of state law
22 claims with California’s Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, and Plaintiff is
23 required to specifically allege compliance in his complaint. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42
24 Cal.4th 201, 208-09 (Cal. 2007); State v. Superior Court of Kings Cnty. (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th
25 1234, 1239 (Cal. 2004); Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101,
26 1111 (9th Cir. 2001); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.
27 1995); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff
28 has not done so.
1 Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendants Sullivan and Barthelmes for
2 failure to train and supervise others.
3 H. Declaratory Relief
4 Besides monetary damages and costs of suit, Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment.
5 A request for declaratory relief should be denied because it is subsumed by Plaintiff’s damages
6 claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 565-66 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (because claim for
7 damages entails determination of whether officers’ alleged conduct violated plaintiff’s rights, the
8 separate request for declaratory relief is subsumed by damages action); see also Fitzpatrick v.
9 Gates, No. CV 00-4191-GAF (AJWx), 2001 WL 630534, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2001)
10 (“Where a plaintiff seeks damages or relief for an alleged constitutional injury that has already
11 occurred declaratory relief generally is inappropriate[.]”)
12 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
13 For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff states cognizable claims in
14 the First Amended Complaint against defendants Ottsman and Chavez for use of excessive force
15 against Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, Plaintiff fails to state any other
16 cognizable claims against any of the Defendants upon which relief may be granted under § 1983.
17 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court should freely give
18 leave to amend when justice so requires.” Plaintiff shall be granted another opportunity to state
19 cognizable claims against the Defendants. Plaintiff shall be required to either file a Second
20 Amended Complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable
21 excessive force claims against defendants Ottsman and Chavez. Should Plaintiff choose to
22 proceed only on the cognizable excessive force claims, the court shall initiate service upon
23 defendants Ottsman and Chavez.
24 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Noll v. Carlson,
25 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the
26 amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named
27 defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights, Iqbal,
28 556 U.S. at 678; Jones, 297 F.3d. at 934. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to
1 ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
2 There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own
3 misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally
4 participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff
5 should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of
6 adding new defendants for unrelated issues. Plaintiff should also note that he has not been
7 granted leave to add allegations of events occurring after the initiation of this suit on April 30,
8 2019.
9 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey
10 v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012), and it must be complete in itself
11 without reference to the prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule 220. Once an amended
12 complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore,
13 in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each
14 defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly
15 titled “Second Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original
16 signed under penalty of perjury.
17 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18 1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;
19 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:
20 (1) File a Second Amended Complaint;
21 Or
22 (2) Notify the court that he does not wish to file an amended complaint and is
23 instead willing to proceed only with the excessive force claims found
24 cognizable by the court against defendants Ottsman and Chavez, and
25 dismissing all other claims and defendants;
26 ///
27 3. If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he shall caption the amended
28 complaint “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 1:19-cv-
1 00688-NONE-GSA-PC; and
2 4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that
3 this case be dismissed.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

6 Dated: September 25, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10022323. Public record. Not legal advice.