Nicolas

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MAURICE DARONTE DAVIS, No. 2:24-cv-03106-EFB (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 ALICE NICOLAS, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel in an action

18 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff seeks leave to proceed

19 in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.

20 I. In Forma Pauperis Application

21 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect

23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

24 1915(b)(1) and (2).

25 II. Screening Order

26 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

27 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

28 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion

1 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

2 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

3 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

4 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)

5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and

6 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the

7 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

8 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).

9 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,

10 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

11 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

12 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked

13 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

14 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of

15 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

16 678.

17 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.

18 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

19 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

20 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a

21 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.

22 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the

23 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

24 Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) alleges that he has

25 been deprived of adequate food in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1 at 2-5. He

26 states that meals are cold and uncooked or barely cooked. Id. at 2. Inmates are given extremely

27 small portions, having been placed on a 2400 calorie per day diet by “C.D.C.R.’s Food Board of

28 Nutrition.” Id. In addition, plaintiff’s chronic kidney disease and fish allergy are not being

1 dietarily accommodated; when inmates are served fish, plaintiff must skip the fish portion of the

2 meal without being provided a substitute. Id. at 4-5. As a result of these practices, plaintiff has

3 lost weight, his body has deteriorated, and he has suffered hunger and stomach pain. Id. at 2.

4 Plaintiff has named as defendants: Alice Nicolas (Dietician), Manjula Bobbala (Chief

5 Medical Officer), and Jeff Lynch (Warden). He alleges that Nicolas has violated his Eighth

6 Amendment rights “because the State of California gives C.D.C.R. $136,000 per year for each

7 inmate [so t]here is no way C.D.C.R. doesn’t have enough money in the budget to feed each

8 inmate accordingly.” Id. at 4. Defendant Lynch is liable, according to plaintiff, because “I’ve

9 complained about this years ago and nothing happened.” Id. Plaintiff named Bobbala as

10 defendant because “she oversees all things medical and is allowing this to happen on her watch.”

11 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and

12 from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.

13 2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim, and

14 only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are

15 sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian,

16 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate

17 shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d

18 726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted).

19 “The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of these necessities must be

20 considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred. The more basic the

21 need, the shorter the time it can be withheld.” Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731 (internal quotation marks

22 and citations omitted). “The sustained deprivation of food can be cruel and unusual punishment

23 when it results in pain without any penological purpose.” Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 813-14

24 (9th Cir. 2009). Food provided to prisoners must be adequate to maintain health, but need not be

25 tasty, attractive, or warm. LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993).

26 The United States Supreme Court has determined that cruel and unusual punishment

27 involves more than negligence or lack of due care for a prisoner’s interests or safety. Whitley v.

28 Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). Specifically, “it is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence

1 or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by the Cruel and Unusual

2 Punishment Clause, whether that conduct occurs in connection with establishing conditions of

3 confinement, supplying medical needs, or restoring official control over a tumultuous cellblock.”

4 Id. Thus, to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege facts

5 showing both (1) an objectively serious deprivation and (2) that each defendant had a subjectively

6 culpable state of mind (often referred to as “deliberate indifference”) in allowing the deprivation

7 to occur. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991); Chappell v. Pliler, No. 2:04-cv-1183 TLN

8 DB P, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9875, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017). To act with deliberate

9 indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be

10 drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Farmer

11 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

12 In addition, the Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

13 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,

14 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to

the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding

15 for redress.

16 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

17 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

18 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

19 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

20 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or

21 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

22 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

23 Supervisory personnel are not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under

24 a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial

25 position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically

26 alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d

27 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations

28 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

1 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

2 Plaintiff’s complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim

3 against defendants. Plaintiff does not provide any information concerning number of times he has

4 been denied adequate food or any details concerning those occasions, leaving the court unable to

5 assess whether an objectively serious deprivation has occurred. In addition, plaintiff has not

6 pleaded sufficient facts showing a causal link between each defendant and the alleged deprivation

7 of adequate food. Plaintiff must state facts showing what acts (or failures to act) by each

8 defendant deprived him of adequate food as well as facts showing that each defendant acted (or

9 failed to act) with a deliberately indifferent state of mind.

10 Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies

11 identified herein.

12 Leave to Amend

13 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally

14 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v.

15 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a

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

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

18 Further, any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in

19 itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an

20 amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is

21 filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v.

22 Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original,

23 the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

24 Cir. 1967)).

25 The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

26 Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed.

27 See Local Rule 110.

28 ////

1 Conclusion

2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

3 1. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED;

4 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in

5 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and

6 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

7 3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days

8 of this order. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this

9 case and be titled “Amended Complaint.”

10 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be

11 dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute.

13 || Dated: November 10, 2025 Littl betel TF eLACLK*

14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28