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 GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1001-KJM-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 LORI W. AUSTIN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42
18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1.
19 On July 23, 2021, the Court issued an order addressing Plaintiff’s complaint. See
20 ECF No. 16. The Court summarized Plaintiff’s allegations as follows:
21 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Lori
Austin, the Chief Executive Officer at the California Medical Facility
22 (CMF); (2) S. Gates, the Chief of Health Care Correspondence and
Appeals; (3) N. McIntosh, the Chief of Mental Health at High Desert State
23 Prison (HDSP); (4) Jennifer Roy, a clinician at HDSP; (5) Welch, a
clinician at HDSP; (6) Hagen, a clinician at CMF; and (7) Croshow, a
24 clinician at CMF. Plaintiff alleges the events outlined in the complaint
took place at both CMF and HDSP. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1.
25 Plaintiff states that he sought help from the “available B-
Yard clinicians and Ad-Seg clinicians (Dr. Welch, Dr. Roy, etc.)”
26 regarding safety concerns. Id. at 4. According to Plaintiff, he was being
victimized by his cellmates and being extorted by violent gang members.
27 See id. Plaintiff states that “custody refused to help me so I began [to]
seek help threw [sic] mental help to be place [sic] in E.O.P.” Id. Plaintiff
28 states that he was told he could not be placed on E.O.P. unless he was
1 currently taking psychotropic medications prescribed by A-Yard
clinicians. See id. Plaintiff states that, while this is untrue, he nonetheless
2 allowed himself to be placed on medication and, despite this, was still not
permitted E.O.P. treatment “for the voices and suicide thoughts I was
3 having.” Id. Plaintiff states that he was assaulted and robbed by “multiple
cellmates I should have never been forced to live with and eventually I
4 had a break down which could have been prevented 10-8-19 and tried to
kill myself with a razor.” Id.
5 Next, Plaintiff states that every time he addressed his
concerns with B-Yard clinicians at HDSP, he was told to speak to
6 “custody” who refused to help. Id. at 5. Plaintiff claims that he had fears
living with a cellmate due to having been molested as a child by a male
7 cousin. See id. Plaintiff states that his request for single-cell status was
denied. See id. According to Plaintiff, he was told that if he was suicidal,
8 he would be required to have a cellmate for his safety. See id. Plaintiff
states that, despite conveying his concerns to prison staff, he was
9 deliberately placed in 2-man cells with violent gang members. See id.
Plaintiff claims that “clinicians like Dr. Roy” began to falsify his medical
10 records and legal documents in order to minimize his safety concerns and
prevent him from being placed on single-cell status. Id. at 6.
11 More specifically regarding Defendant Welch, Plaintiff
states that he initially spoke to HDSP B-Yard clinicians about his safety
12 and suicide concerns and was temporarily placed in administrative
segregation where he spoke with Defendant Welch, a psychologist. See
13 id. at 9. According to Plaintiff, he informed Defendant Welch “how bad
the voices were in my head and how I was starting to have suicidal
14 thoughts,” but Defendant Welch “did nothing to help me.” Id.
Plaintiff states the alleged conduct resulted in denial of his
15 Eighth Amendment right to safety. See id. at 4, 5, 6.
16 ECF No. 16, pgs. 2-3.
17 The Court determined the complaint states a potentially cognizable claim against
18 Defendant Welch based on Plaintiff’s allegations that, despite knowledge of suicidal ideation,
19 Defendant Welch “did nothing.” Id. at 4. The Court also found that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to
20 state a claim against any other named defendant. The Court concluded:
21 Plaintiff’s complaint otherwise fails to establish a causal
link between any other named defendant and the alleged Eighth
22 Amendment violation related to safety. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between the
23 actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell
v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.
24 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a
constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an
25 affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to
perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
26 deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d
740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning
27 the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not
sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
28 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each
1 individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation.
See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
2
ECF No. 16, pgs. 4-5.
3
4 Plaintiff was provided leave to file a first amended complaint and cautioned that, if
5 he did not do so within the time provided, the action would proceed on the original complaint
6 against Defendant Welch only. See id. at 5. On September 8, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff a
7 45- day extension of time to file a first amended complaint. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiff thereafter
8 filed a first amended complaint on September 24, 2021. See ECF No. 19. That pleading,
9 however, was stricken by order issued on December 1, 2021, because it was unsigned. See ECF
10 No. 21. In the same order, Plaintiff was directed to file a signed first amended complaint within
11 30 days and again cautioned that, if he failed to do so within the time provided, the action would
12 proceed on the original complaint against Defendant Welch only. See id. While Plaintiff has
13 filed a signed “response” to the Court’s December 1, 2021, this document is insufficient to
14 constitute a first amended complaint because is refers to another pleading, specifically the
15 original complaint, and does not specifically mention any of the originally named Defendants.
16 To date Plaintiff has not properly filed a first amended complaint setting out his
17 claim against Defendant Welch let alone curing the defects the Court identified in the July 23,
18 2021, order with respect to the other named defendants. The Court, therefore, now recommends
19 this action proceed on the original complaint against Defendant Welch only based on Plaintiff’s
20 claim that, despite knowledge of Plaintiff’s suicidal ideation, Defendant Welch “did nothing,” and
21 that all other claims and defendants be dismissed.
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:
2 1. This action proceed on Plaintiffs original complaint against Defendant
3 | Welch only on Plaintiffs claim that, despite Plaintiffs suicidal ideation, Defendant Welch “did
4 | nothing.”
5 2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed.
6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
7 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days
8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections
9 | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.
10 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v.
11 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
12
13 | Dated: February 14, 2022 Ssvcqo_
DENNIS M. COTA
15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28