Leatherman

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 FORREST C. TAYLOR, No. 2:25-cv-1100 CSK P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 J. LEATHERMAN, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under

18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend, and

19 now plaintiff’s first amended complaint is before the Court. (ECF Nos. 14, 18.)

20 I. SCREENING STANDARDS

21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally

24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

26 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

27 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

28 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an

1 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

2 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

3 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

4 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

5 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably

6 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at

7 1227.

8 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain

9 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

10 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

11 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

12 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a

13 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations

14 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.

15 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the

16 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v.

17 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal

18 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as

19 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the

20 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

21 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

22 II. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

23 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal

24 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under

25 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d

26 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the

27 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal

28 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.

1 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44

2 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable

3 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

4 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the

5 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including

6 by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision,

7 or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,

8 1208 (9th Cir. 2011).

9 III. PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10 In his verified first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges the following took place while he

11 was housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff was targeted for

12 reprisal for exercising his right to file grievances when defendant J. Leatherman started to tell

13 inmates that plaintiff was an alleged sex offender to cause plaintiff harm for writing grievances.

14 (ECF No. 18 at 3.) Defendant J. Leatherman told plaintiff to either rescind the grievances or

15 “they will make his life hell.” (Id.) Plaintiff was told he had no help from custody. Plaintiff was

16 approached by other inmates and asked about the sex offender rumor; then he was told to attack

17 the correctional officer or he would be attacked. (Id.) Plaintiff refused, and, fearing for his

18 safety, went to defendant Sgt. D. Heinkel to explain his life was in danger, but Heinkel told

19 plaintiff that no help would come from custody. Plaintiff reached out to mental health and was

20 told it was a custody issue. (Id. at 3.) On or about August 4, 2021, plaintiff was called to medical

21 where, without provocation, plaintiff was battered by defendant R. Mcleod who handcuffed

22 plaintiff then aggressively slammed plaintiff’s face and upper body into the front door, grabbed

23 plaintiff’s arm and repeatedly slammed his face into the door while calling him a “stupid nigger.”

24 (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff became enraged and told R. Mcleod that he was a tough guy to batter plaintiff

25 while in handcuffs. R. Mcleod told plaintiff to shut up and smashed plaintiff’s face into the door

26 one last time. While R. Mcleod was walking plaintiff to the program office, R. Mcleod told other

27 inmates that plaintiff was a sex offender. Plaintiff screamed “why are you lying on me? That shit

28 can get me killed.” R. Mcleod responded, “I know that is what we want -- this is SAC.” (Id.)

1 Plaintiff was put in administrative segregation (“Ad-Seg”), and did not know why. (Id.) Plaintiff

2 filed a grievance about these defendants telling inmates plaintiff was a sex offender, but the

3 grievances were denied. (Id. at 4-5.)

4 Defendant C. Pierce refused to call plaintiff’s witnesses at plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing,

5 and found plaintiff guilty of a sexual misconduct. (Id. at 5.) Defendant Captain A. Konrad came

6 to interview plaintiff about being labeled a sex offender; plaintiff informed the captain that

7 plaintiff is not a sex offender, has not been convicted of a sex crime, and that prison staff were

8 retaliating against plaintiff for exercising his first Amendment rights. (Id.) A. Konrad became

9 angry, and told plaintiff he has no rights in prison, and plaintiff better stop writing grievances.

10 (Id.)

11 Plaintiff went to committee and explained to defendant Warden J. Lynch that “his

12 subordinates were intentionally abusing their positions to cover up each other’s illegal conduct.”

13 (Id.) Plaintiff was forced back to B Facility, and on October 10, 2021, plaintiff was attacked by

14 two inmates because plaintiff was labeled a sex offender. (Id.)

15 In his first cause of action, plaintiff alleges defendants D. Heinkel, J. Leatherman, C.

16 Pierce, A. Konrad, and J. Lynch failed to protect plaintiff from an excessive risk to his safety in

17 violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at 6-7.)

18 In his second cause of action, plaintiff alleges defendants J. Leatherman, A. Konrad, D.

19 Heinkel, C. Pierce, and R. Mcleod, in deliberate indifference, violated plaintiff’s right to have

20 personal safety from an excessive risk of harm and his right to be free from cruel and unusual

21 punishment. (Id. at 7-9.)

22 In his third cause of action, plaintiff alleges defendants J. Leatherman, A. Konrad, C.

23 Pierce, D. Heinkel, R. Mcleod, and J. Lynch violated plaintiff’s right to be free from cruel and

24 unusual punishment by their deliberate indifference to his personal safety. (Id. at 9-11.)

25 In his fourth cause of action, plaintiff alleges defendant R. Mcleod used excessive force

26 against plaintiff and failed to protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and also

27 alleges state law tort claims of assault and battery. (Id. at 12-13.) As a result of this excessive

28 force, plaintiff sustained bruising and contusions to his face. (Id.)

1 In his fifth cause of action, plaintiff alleges that defendants C. Pierce, A. Konrad, D.

2 Heinkel, J. Lynch, and J. Leatherman intentionally violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by

3 “intimidation, harassment, abuse, and other violations of law against plaintiff.” (Id. at 13.)

4 Plaintiff alleges these defendants “took adverse action against the plaintiff to chill and/or silence

5 him” from pursuing his First Amendment rights in the future. (Id. at 14.)

6 As a result of all the above actions, plaintiff suffered four stitches in his lip, a chipped

7 front tooth and bruising. Also, plaintiff suffered due process violations that caused plaintiff to be

8 in ad-seg and lose privileges for six months. (Id.) As relief, plaintiff seeks a jury trial,

9 declaratory judgment, money damages, and removal of the August 4, 2021 rules violation report

10 authored by defendant J. Leatherman. (Id. at 15.)

11 IV. DISCUSSION

12 A. Potentially Cognizable Claims

13 Plaintiff’s first three causes of action are based on his claims that defendants were

14 deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety, or in other words, failing to protect plaintiff in

15 violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court finds plaintiff states potentially cognizable Eighth

16 Amendment failure to protect claims against defendants J. Leatherman and R. Mcleod, based on

17 their actions in telling other inmates plaintiff was a sex offender. See Morris v. Burkhouse, 2021

18 WL 2119497, at *4 (C.D. Cal. March 24, 2021) (holding that the defendants were deliberately

19 indifferent to a substantial risk of harm when they “identified [the plaintiff] to the entire prison

20 population as sex offender”).

21 Plaintiff also states potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendant D.

22 Heinkel for failing to protect plaintiff after plaintiff reported his fears for his life, and D. Heinkel

23 told plaintiff “no help would come from custody . . . period!” which shows his culpable state of

24 mind; and against defendant A. Konrad for failing to protect plaintiff after A. Konrad interviewed

25 plaintiff about the threats based on his being labeled a sex offender, and A. Konrad telling

26 plaintiff to stop filing grievances shows his culpable state of mind.

27 Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action states a potentially cognizable excessive force claim

28 against defendant R. Mcleod based on his use of force while plaintiff was handcuffed and for no

1 legitimate penological purpose, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

2 Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action states potentially cognizable retaliation claims against

3 defendants J. Leatherman based on plaintiff’s allegations that J. Leatherman told other inmates

4 plaintiff was a sex offender in retaliation for plaintiff filing grievances.

5 Therefore, following review plaintiff’s first amended complaint and, for the limited

6 purposes of § 1915A screening, the Court finds that it states potentially cognizable Eighth

7 Amendment claims against defendants J. Leatherman, R. McLeod, D. Heinkel, and A. Konrad,

8 and a potentially cognizable First Amendment claim against defendant J. Leatherman. See

9 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

10 B. Noncognizable Claims

11 1. Constitutional Claims

12 For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the first amended complaint does not

13 state potentially cognizable constitutional claims as follows:

14 • Defendant C. Pierce’s only role was hearing the disciplinary. There are no facts showing

15 that C. Pierce was deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to plaintiff. Plaintiff does

16 not allege facts that the actions of C. Pierce were based on plaintiff’s protected conduct.1

17 Thus, plaintiff fails to state cognizable First or Eighth Amendment claims against C.

18 Pierce.

19 • Although plaintiff alleges defendant D. Heinkel failed to protect plaintiff, there are no

20 facts alleging that D. Heinkel’s failure to act was based on plaintiff’s protected conduct.

21 Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a retaliation claim against D. Heinkel.

22 • Similarly, plaintiff does not include any facts demonstrating that defendant A. Konrad

23 retaliated against plaintiff. A. Konrad went to interview plaintiff, but plaintiff does not

24 allege that A. Konrad failed to act because of plaintiff’s protected conduct, and identifies

25 no adverse action after A. Konrad told plaintiff to stop filing grievances. Plaintiff does

26

1 In his first amended complaint, plaintiff did not raise a separate cause of action claiming

27 defendant C. Pierce violated plaintiff’s due process rights during the disciplinary hearing.

Plaintiff does not include sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether plaintiff could state a

28 viable due process claim.

1 not state a retaliation claim against A. Konrad.

2 • As to defendant J. Lynch, who apparently ran plaintiff’s committee hearing, plaintiff

3 includes no facts showing that J. Lynch took no action during the committee hearing or

4 after because of plaintiff’s protected conduct. In addition, plaintiff does not allege that J.

5 Lynch was aware that defendants J. Leatherman and R. Mcleod told other inmates

6 plaintiff was a sex offender. Plaintiff alleges only that he told J. Lynch that his

7 subordinates were intentionally abusing their positions to cover up each other’s illegal

8 conduct. Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable retaliation claim against J. Lynch. In

9 addition, although plaintiff claims J. Lynch was “deliberately indifferent,” plaintiff fails to

10 allege facts showing that J. Lynch acted with a culpable state of mind. Therefore, plaintiff

11 also fails to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against J. Lynch.

12 2. State Law Claims

13 Plaintiff included state law claims of assault and battery against defendant R. Mcleod.

14 Under the California Government Claims Act,2 set forth in California Government Code sections

15 810 et seq., a plaintiff may not bring a suit for monetary damages against a public employee or

16 entity unless the plaintiff first presented the claim to the California Victim Compensation and

17 Government Claims Board (“Board”), and the Board acted on the claim, or the time for doing so

18 expired. Compliance with this “claim presentation requirement” constitutes an element of a cause

19 of action for damages against a public entity or official. State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.

20 4th 1234, 1244 (2004). Thus, timely presentation of a claim under the Government Claims Act is

21 an element of the cause of action and must be pled in the complaint. Id. at 1237, 1240; see also

22 Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). The plaintiff must

23 present facts demonstrating compliance, rather than simply conclusions suggesting as much.

24 Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 (2007), as modified (Oct. 10, 2007).

25 Such requirements also apply to state law claims included in a federal action under § 1983. See

26

27 2 Formerly known as the California Tort Claims Act. City of Stockton v. Superior Court, 42

Cal.4th 730, 741-42 (Cal. 2007) (adopting the practice of using “Government Claims Act” rather

28 than “California Tort Claims Act”).

1 Volis v. Housing Auth. of the City of L.A. Emps., 670 F. App’x 543, 544 (9th Cir. 2016).

2 To be timely, a claim must be presented to the Board “not later than six months after the

3 accrual of the cause of action.” Cal. Govt. Code § 911.2. Thereafter, “any suit brought against a

4 public entity” must be commenced no more than six months after the public entity rejects the

5 claim. Cal. Govt. Code, § 945.6, subd. (a)(1). Federal courts must require compliance with the

6 California Government Claims Act for pendant state law claims that seek damages against state

7 employees or entities. Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 1969); Mangold, 67 F.3d at

8 1477. State tort claims included in a federal action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, may

9 proceed only if the claims were presented in compliance with the applicable exhaustion

10 requirements. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir.

11 1988); Butler v. Los Angeles County, 617 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

12 3. Conclusion

13 Accordingly, the Eighth Amendment claims against defendants C. Pierce and J. Lynch,

14 and the First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants C. Pierce, D. Heinkel, A. Konrad,

15 and J. Lynch are hereby dismissed with leave to amend. In addition, plaintiff’s state law claims

16 against defendant R. Mcleod are dismissed with leave to amend.

17 V. PLAINTIFF’S OPTIONS

18 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants D. Leatherman, R. McLeod, D.

19 Heinkel, and A. Konrad, and pursue plaintiff’s potentially cognizable claims against only those

20 defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt again to state a cognizable First

21 and Eighth Amendment claim against defendants C. Pierce and J. Lynch, cognizable retaliation

22 claims against defendants D. Heinkel and A. Konrad, and state law claims against defendant R.

23 Mcleod. If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants D. Leatherman, R. McLeod,

24 D. Heinkel, and A. Konrad, against whom he stated potentially cognizable claims for relief

25 identified above, then within thirty days plaintiff must so elect on the appended form. In this

26 event the Court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal without prejudice of the

27 noncognizable claims set forth above against defendants C. Pierce, J. Lynch, D. Heinkel, and A.

28 Konrad, and state law claims against defendant R. Mcleod. Under this option, plaintiff does not

1 need to file a second amended complaint.

2 Or, plaintiff may delay serving any defendant and attempt again to state a cognizable

3 claim against defendants C. Pierce, J. Lynch, D. Heinkel, and A. Konrad, and state law claims

4 against defendant R. Mcleod. If plaintiff elects to attempt to file a second amended complaint to

5 address the deficiencies identified above, he has thirty days to do so.

6 Plaintiff is not granted leave to add new claims or new defendants.

7 Any second amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

8 brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

9 must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

10 who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

11 right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a

12 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is

13 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation).

14 A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

15 and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

16 opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1130-31. While detailed factual

17 allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported

18 by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atlantic,

19 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

20 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550

21 U.S. at 570).

22 A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

23 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility

standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for

24 more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.

Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

25 defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and

plausibility of entitlement to relief.

26

27 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions

28 can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are

1 | not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id.

2 Any second amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

3 | pleading. Local Rule 220; see Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th

4 | Cir. 2015) (‘an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as

5 || non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the

6 || prior complaints are superseded.

7 | VI. CONCLUSION

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9 1. The Eighth Amendment claims against defendants C. Pierce and J. Lynch; the First

10 || Amendment retaliation claims against defendants C. Pierce, D. Heinkel, A. Konrad, and J. Lynch;

11 || as well as the state law claims against defendant R. Mcleod are dismissed with leave to amend.

12 | Within thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state

13 || cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.

14 2. The allegations in the first amended complaint are sufficient at least to state potentially

15 || cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants D. Leatherman, R. McLeod, D.

16 | Heinkel, and A. Konrad; and a First Amendment claim against defendant J. Leatherman. See

17 | 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. plaintiff chooses to proceed solely as to such claims, plaintiff shall so

18 || indicate on the attached form and return it to the Court within thirty days from the date of this

19 | order. In this event, the Court will construe plaintiff's election to proceed forthwith as consent to

20 | an order dismissing the defective claims without prejudice.

21 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

22 || proceed on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claims against defendants D. Leatherman, R. McLeod,

23 || D. Heinkel, and A. Konrad, and First Amendment claim against defendant J. Leatherman, and a

24 || recommendation that the defective claims be dismissed.

25 || Dated: September 30, 2025 A aA

Cn Ye \L

CHI SOO KIM

27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28 || /Aayl1100.140

10

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 FORREST C. TAYLOR, No. 2:25-cv-1100 CSK P

10 Plaintiff,

11 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION

12 J. LEATHERMAN, et al.,

13 Defendants.

14

15

16 Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows:

17

______ Plaintiff opts to proceed with his Eighth Amendment claims against

18 defendants D. Leatherman, R. McLeod, D. Heinkel, and A. Konrad, and

First Amendment claim against defendant J. Leatherman. Under this

19 option, plaintiff consents to dismissal without prejudice of the Eighth

Amendment claims against defendants C. Pierce and J. Lynch, the First

20 Amendment retaliation claims against defendants C. Pierce, D. Heinkel, A.

Konrad, and J. Lynch, and the state law claims against defendant R.

21

Mcleod.

22

OR

23

_____ Plaintiff opts to file a second amended complaint and delay service of

process.

24

25

DATED:

26

_______________________________

27

Plaintiff

28