# (PC) Eddington v. Jackson

> District Court, E.D. California · July 13, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054042

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** July 13, 2023
- **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/10054042

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, under the Due Process 11 Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to conviction

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MELVIN LAVERN EDDINGTON, JR., Case No. 1:21-cv-01165-HBK (PC)
12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER DIRECTING THE
FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT;
13 v.
STAND ON THE COMPLAINT AND
14 K. JACKSON, J. SMITH, P. ROGAN, M. VOLUNTARILY DISMISS CLAIMS
MONTOYA, B. RODRIGUEZ, C. DEEMED NOT COGNIZABLE; OR,
15 GONZALES, M. JOHNSON, and S.
MAGDALENO, STAND ON COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO
16 COURT RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
Defendants. CLAIMS DEEMED NOT COGNIZABLE TO
17 THE DISTRICT COURT1
18 (Doc. No. 1)
19 AUGUST 14, 2023 DEADLINE

20
21 Pending before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is the pro se civil rights
22 complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Melvin LaVern Eddington Jr.—a prisoner. (Doc. No.
23 1, “Complaint”). Upon review, the Court finds the Complaint states a cognizable Eighth
24 Amendment Excessive Use of Force claim against Defendants Jackson, Smith, Rogan, Montoya,
25 Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Johnson, and Magdaleno, but fails to state any other cognizable claims.
26 The Court affords Plaintiff the option to file an amended complaint, file a notice to proceed only
27
1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302
28 (E.D. Cal. 2022).
1 on his claims deemed cognizable, or stand on his Complaint subject to the Court recommending
2 the district court dismiss any remaining Defendants and claims deemed not cognizable.
3 SCREENING REQUIREMENT
4 A plaintiff who commences an action while in prison is subject to the Prison Litigation
5 Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires, inter alia, the court to screen a complaint that seeks relief
6 against a governmental entity, its officers, or its employees before directing service upon any
7 defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requires the court to identify any cognizable claims and
8 dismiss the complaint, or any portion, if is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon
9 which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
10 such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).
11 At the screening stage, the court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true,
12 construes the complaint liberally, and resolves all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v.
13 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.
14 2003). A court does not have to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or
15 unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.
16 1981). Critical to evaluating a constitutional claim is whether it has an arguable legal and factual
17 basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).
18 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a complaint include “a short and
19 plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
20 Nonetheless, a claim must be facially plausible to survive screening. This requires sufficient
21 factual detail to allow the court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the
22 misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
23 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
24 sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard.
25 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. Although detailed factual allegations are not
26 required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
27 statements, do not suffice,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations omitted), and courts “are not required
28 to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir.
1 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2 The Rules permit a complaint to include all related claims against a party and permit
3 joinder of all defendants alleged to be liable for the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of
4 transactions or occurrences” where “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will
5 arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) and 20(a)(2) (emphasis added). But the Rules prohibit
6 conglomeration of unrelated claims against unrelated defendants in a single lawsuit. A litigant
7 must file unrelated claims in separate lawsuits.
8 If an otherwise deficient pleading can be remedied by alleging other facts, a pro se litigant
9 is entitled to an opportunity to amend their complaint before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v.
10 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); Lucas v. Department of Corr., 66 F.3d
11 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). However, it is not the role of the court to advise a pro se litigant on
12 how to cure the defects. Such advice “would undermine district judges’ role as impartial
13 decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131
14 n.13. Furthermore, the court in its discretion may deny leave to amend due to “undue delay, bad
15 faith or dilatory motive of the part of the movant, [or] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
16 amendments previously allowed . . . .” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Srvs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892
17 (9th Cir. 2010).
18 SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT
19 The events giving rise to the Complaint occurred at Wasco State Prison in Wasco,
20 California and the (AHB)2 Hospital in Bakersfield, California. (Doc. No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff’s
21 Complaint identifies eight Defendants: (1) Sergeant Kelvin Jackson, (2) Correctional Officer
22 Jeffrey Smith, (3) Correctional Officer Perry Rogan, (4) Correctional Officer Michael Montoya,
23 (5) Correctional Officer Brandon Rodriguez, (6) Correctional Officer Carlos Gonzalez,
24 (7) Correctional Officer Matthew Johnson, and (8) Correctional Officer Sergio Magdaleno. (Id.
25 at 2-3).3 The Complaint alleges the Defendants used excessive force in violation of Plaintiff’s
26
2 The Complaint does not state what the acronym “AHB” represents, but in context, the Court construes
27 the acronym as referring to Adventist Health Bakersfield.
3 The Court refers to the page numbers of the Complaint as reflected on the Court’s CM/ECF system
28 instead of the page numbers on the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
1 rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 5, 15-16). The Complaint sets forth
2 the following facts, which are presumed true at this stage of the proceedings.
3 On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff was waiting outside of the program office for his social worker
4 when he accused a female “staff worker” of interfering with his phone calls. (Id. at 5). An
5 unidentified officer ordered Plaintiff to stop talking to the female; however, Plaintiff ignored the
6 order and told her to stop interfering with his calls. (Id. at 6).
7 Defendants Jackson, Rogan, Smith, Montoya, and Rodriguez then ordered Plaintiff to stop
8 speaking with the female and return to return to his housing unit. (Id.). Plaintiff refused the
9 order. (Id.). While Defendant Jackson spoke to Plaintiff, Defendant Rogan “without reason or
10 any warning[,] sprayed [Plaintiff] with pepper spray] in [his] left face.” (Id. at 6 -7). Plaintiff
11 turned and walked a few steps away, used his shirt to wipe his face, and then walked back
12 towards the Defendants, stopping seven feet from them. (Id. at 7). Defendant Rogan again
13 administered pepper spray into Plaintiff’s eyes and face and then all five Defendants tackled
14 Plaintiff. (Id.).
15 While on the ground, Defendant Rogan handcuffed Plaintiff. (Id.). Defendants then
16 punched, kicked, and grinded Plaintiff’s face into the ground. (Id. at 7-8). Defendant Montoya
17 used a metal baton to strike Plaintiff’s right cheek three or four times. (Id.). Plaintiff had
18 difficulty breathing due to Defendants Rogan, Montoya, Smith, and Rodriguez applying pressure
19 using their body weight. (Id. at 8-9). Plaintiff told Defendants he was having difficulty breathing
20 but they continued to add more pressure. (Id. at 9).
21 Plaintiff was placed in handcuffs and leg restraints and escorted to the Facility A Program
22 Office. (Id.). When Plaintiff learned that Defendants were going to place him in a holding cage,
23 he stopped walking and refused to go into the holding cage. (Id.). As a result, Defendants
24 punched Plaintiff, yelled at him to get into the cage, and eventually lifted him off the ground and
25 forced him into the holding cage. (Id. at 9-10). While in the holding cage, Defendants Smith and
26 Rogan repeatedly punched and kicked Plaintiff while yelling at him to stay in the cage. (Id. at
27 10). Plaintiff was also struck on the face with a metal baton by Defendant Smith when he used
28 his foot to prevent the door of the holding cage from closing. (Id. at 10-11).
1 Once in the holding cage, Plaintiff spat and was taken to the ground. (Id. at 11-12).
2 While Defendants continued to punch Plaintiff, Defendant Jackson put a spit hood on him. (Id. at
3 11-13). Handcuffs were re-applied tightly to Plaintiff’s wrists and legs while an unidentified
4 officer and Defendant Jackson moved the handcuffs in a back-and-forth motion that cut off his
5 circulation. (Id.). Plaintiff screamed in pain and lost consciousness. (Id.).
6 Later that day at 5:30 p.m., Plaintiff was transported to AHB Hospital Emergency Room.
7 (Id. at 16). Plaintiff woke up in a hallway at AHB and heard Defendants Magdaleno and
8 Gonzalez express their frustration with having to stay at the hospital. (Id.). Defendant Gonzalez
9 tried to persuade Plaintiff to leave the hospital before seeing the doctor, but Plaintiff refused. (Id.
10 at 17). Defendant Gonzalez responded by telling Plaintiff they were going to take him back to the
11 prison and they would beat him up if he tried to escape or attack the correctional officers. (Id. at
12 17). Defendant Gonzalez then closed a curtain in front of Plaintiff’s hospital bed and called for
13 other officers. (Id.). Plaintiff sat up and made a sound like he was going to start spitting and
14 Defendant Gonzalez grabbed Plaintiff by the neck and punched him in the mouth. (Id.).
15 Defendant Gonzalez then pulled Plaintiff out of the hospital bed and pushed him to the ground
16 face-first. (Id.) Defendant Gonzales held Plaintiff down on the ground while Defendants
17 Magdaleno, Gonzalez and Johnson punched Plaintiff. (Id. at 17-18). Defendant Johnson also
18 pushed the tip of his metal baton into the middle of Plaintiff’s spine. (Id.).
19 As relief, Plaintiff seeks five million dollars in “punitive damages, general damages,
20 compensatory damages, prejudgments interest, exemplary damages, physical damages, mental
21 damages, emotional damages, attorney fees and cost.” (Id. at 19).
22 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANAYSIS
23 A. Official Capacity Claims
24 The Complaint sues all Defendants in both their official and individual capacities. A
25 claim against any correctional officer in his or her official capacity is the same as a suit against
26 the employing agency—here, the California Department of Corrections and Rehibitions
27 (“CDCR”). Monell v. New York Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 685, 690 n. 55 (1978).
28 However, an official capacity claim cannot proceed unless a complaint alleges facts to establish
1 that the official acted pursuant to a policy or custom. Id. Here, the Complaint contains no
2 allegations that any Defendant acted pursuant to a policy or custom. Thus, the Complaint fails to
3 state a claim against any of the Defendants in their official capacity.
4 B. Fourteenth Amendment Excessive Use of Force
5 As an initial matter, the Court addresses the appropriate legal standard for Plaintiff’s
6 excessive use of force claims. “Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in
7 custody may do so under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if
8 not yet convicted, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Castro v. County of
9 Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 831 (Jan.
10 23, 2017) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979) (holding that, under the Due Process
11 Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to conviction)). Because it is uncontroverted that
12 Plaintiff was always during the alleged incidents a state inmate and not a pretrial detainee, he
13 cannot bring an excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
14 C. Eighth Amendment Excessive Use of Force
15 Prison officials who use excessive force against inmates violate the inmate’s Eighth
16 Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
17 825, 832 (1994); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir., 2002). “[W]henever prison
18 officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the [Eighth Amendment],
19 the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
20 restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.
21 1, 6-7 (1992). When determining whether the force was excessive, the court looks to the “extent
22 of injury suffered by an inmate . . . the need for application of force, the relationship between that
23 need and the amount of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’
24 and ‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.’” Id. at 7 (quoting Whitley v.
25 Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986)). While de minimis uses of physical force generally do not
26 implicate the Eighth Amendment, significant injury need not be evident in the context of an
27 excessive force claim, because “[w]hen prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to
28 cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9.
1 Claims at WASCO
2 At this stage of the process, the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a cognizable
3 excessive force claim against Defendants Jackson, Rogan, Smith, Montoya, and Rodriguez. First,
4 putting aside the punching and kicking of Plaintiff, Defendant Rogan administered pepper spray
5 against Plaintiff twice, without a warning. While Plaintiff acknowledges he refused to comply
6 with an order and then took steps toward the officers, both of which may qualify to justify the use
7 of force,4 the Complaint states a cognizable claim of excessive force against Defendant Rogan
8 concerning the administering of the pepper spray to proceed further because there was no warning
9 before the pepper spray was administered. See Williams v. Young, 2015 WL 4617985, at *10-11
10 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2015) (“There are three general areas in which courts have held that use of
11 pepper spray or other chemical agents may constitute excessive force…[f]irst…when an officer
12 used far more than a reasonable quantity of a chemical agent[,]…second…when a chemical agent
13 was used without a prior verbal command[, and]…third…after a prisoner is pepper sprayed (even
14 for a legitimate reason), officers then withhold appropriate medical attention.”); see also Owens v.
15 Banuelos, 2020 WL 5110294, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2020) (finding triable Eighth Amendment
16 claim where officer pepper sprayed inmate without warning or provocation).
17 After the pepper spray was administered, Defendants Jackson, Rogan, Smith, Montoya,
18 and Rodriguez continued to punch, kick, and use a metal baton against Plaintiff multiple times
19 while he was in handcuffs, on the ground, and under their control. Even after Defendants had
20 later placed Plaintiff in a holding cage, Defendants again continued to assault Plaintiff, including
21 twisting the cuff on Plaintiff’s limbs in a motion that caused Plaintiff extreme pain. Plaintiff
22 suffered injuries from Defendants Jackson, Rogan, Smith, Montoya, and Rodriguez’s use of force
23 that required his transport to the hospital; thus, the Complaint states a cognizable Eight
24 Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Jackson, Rogan, Smith, Montoya, and
25 Rodriguez stemming from the kicking and punching of Plaintiff while handcuffed and on the
26

27 4 The Court is cognizant that certain circumstances, such as an immediate threat to officer safety,
diminishes the necessity for a prior warning. But this issue is more proper for summary judgment or a
28 jury, not at the screening stage.
1 ground and in the cage.
2 Claim at AHB
3 The Complaint also contains sufficient facts at this stage to state a cognizable excessive
4 use of force claim against Defendants Gonzalez, Johnson, and Magdaleno arising from their use
5 of force at AHB the evening of July 31, 2019. Plaintiff alleges he was lying in the hospital bed
6 and presented no threat of physical harm to Defendants Gonzalez, Johnson and Magdaleno. In
7 response to his making a sound like he was going to spit, these three correctional officers
8 repeatedly kicked and punched Plaintiff after dragged him out of his hospital bed and to the
9 ground. Defendants then continued to punch and kick Plaintiff while he was on the ground. As a
10 result, Plaintiff suffered injuries from the attack. Accordingly, the Complaint states a cognizable
11 Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claim concerning the events at AHB.
12 OPTIONS
13 Liberally construing the Complaint and accepting the allegations as true, the Court finds
14 the Complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for excessive use of force against
15 Defendants Jackson, Smith, Rogan, Montoya, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Johnson, and Magdaleno, in
16 their individual capacities, but no other claim. To continue the prosecution of this action,
17 Plaintiff must take one of the following three options no later than August 14, 2023:
18 First Option: Because the Court cannot determine that the filing of an amended
19 complaint cannot cure the deficiencies identified above, the Court will afford Plaintiff an
20 opportunity to file an amended complaint if he chooses. The amended complaint supersedes
21 (replaces) the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be free-standing and
22 complete. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th
23 Cir. 1989). Plaintiff should use the Court’s approved Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint Form to
24 file his amended complaint and must title it “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff may not raise
25 unrelated or new claims or add new defendants if he chooses to file an amended complaint.
26 Second Option: Plaintiff may file a Notice under Rule 41 stating he intends to stand on
27 his current Complaint as screened herein and proceed only on his Eighth Amendment excessive
28 force claims against Defendants Jackson, Smith, Rogan, Montoya, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Johnson,
1 | and Magdaleno in their individual capacities, thereby dismissing the Fourteenth Amendment and
2 | official capacity claims the Court deemed not cognizable. The Court would then order service on
3 | Defendants Jackson, Smith, Rogan, Montoya, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Johnson, and Magdaleno,
4 | who has not yet been served, and direct these Defendants to respond to the Complaint.
5 Third Option: Plaintiff may stand on his Complaint subject to the undersigned issuing a
6 | Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment and official capacity
7 | claims the Court has deemed not cognizable.
8 If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Court Order, i.e., fails to elect and notify the
9 | Court of any of the three options, the undersigned will recommend that the district court dismiss
10 | this case as a sanction for Plaintiffs failure to comply with a court order and for failing to
11 || prosecute this action after its determination that the complaint failed to state a claim. See Local
12 | Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
14 1. No later than August 14, 2023, Plaintiff shall elect one of the three options and
15 | deliver to correctional officials for mailing: (a) a First Amended Complaint; (b); a Notice under
16 | Rule 41 that he intends to stand on the Complaint as screened thereby voluntarily dismissing the
17 | Fourteenth Amendment and official capacity claims for the reasons stated in this Order; (c) a
18 | Notice that he intends to stand on his Complaint subject to the undersigned recommending the
19 | district court dismiss the claims deemed not cognizable.
20 2. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Court Order or seek an extension of
21 | time to comply, the Court will recommend the district court dismiss this action for Plaintiff's
22 | failure to comply with this Court Order and prosecute this action.
23 3. The Clerk of Court shall include a blank civil rights complaint form for □□□□□□□□□□□
24 | use as appropriate.
| Dated: _ July 13, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte
6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054042. Public record. Not legal advice.