# Medina

> District Court, E.D. California · June 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11388335

## Case

- **Full name:** Donn Richardson v. Medina, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 18, 2026
- **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/11388335

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 DONN RICHARDSON, Case No. 1:25-cv-01345-BAM (PC)
13 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO
14 v. ACTION
15 MEDINA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
16 Defendants.
(ECF No. 9)
17
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
18
19 Plaintiff Donn Richardson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 8, 2026, the Court screened Plaintiff’s
21 complaint and granted him leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint,
22 filed on June 15, 2026, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 9.)
23 I. Screening Requirement and Standard
24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
25 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
26 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous
27 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
28 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b);
1 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
2 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
3 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
4 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
5 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
6 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
7 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
8 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
9 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
10 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
11 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
12 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
13 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
14 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
15 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations
16 Plaintiff is currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison. The events in the amended
17 complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison.
18 Plaintiff names the following defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) Carlos
19 Medina; (2) Robert Arreola; and (3) Lorenzo Felix.
20 Plaintiff claims that he underwent a battery/assault by four inmates that was promoted,
21 planned, and orchestrated by Lorenzo Felix, Carlos Medina, and Robert Arreola. Plaintiff
22 alleges:
23 On November 18, 2023, Plaintiff was in his cell when C/O Tower Felix, Medina, and
24 Arreola allowed all four inmates out of their cells 3-4 hours prior to coming into Plaintiff’s cell
25 and attacking him. All three correctional officers had prior knowledge of the attack/battery, but
26 failed to protect him. All four inmates told all three correctional officers of their plan to come
27 into Plaintiff’s cell to attack him. The correctional officers’ body camera will prove this.
28 Once he was transported to the ASU holding cage, he was left there without any restroom
1 breaks or food for over ten hours. Plaintiff claims inmates are only allowed two hours max in a
2 holding cage.
3 Correctional Officers Medina, Felix, and Arreola were responsible for packing missing
4 property under CA Title 15.3193.Liability. Plaintiff wrote/filed grievances against said
5 defendants. He exhausted all of his administrative remedies.
6 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with compensatory and punitive
7 damages.
8 III. Discussion
9 A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain
11 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed
12 factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
13 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation
14 omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
15 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570,
16 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.;
17 see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557.
18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is short, but it is not a plain statement of his claims.
19 Plaintiff’s allegations are disjointed, and the Court is unable to clearly determine what happened,
20 particularly with regard to the alleged assault/battery and the packing of his property. In certain
21 instances, Plaintiff has failed to allege what each named defendant did or did not do that resulted
22 in a violation of his rights. For example, Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants were responsible
23 for packing missing personal property and that Plaintiff wrote grievances against them are not
24 sufficient . Plaintiff’s conclusory statements without factual support do not meet the Rule 8
25 standard.
26 B. Official Capacity
27 Plaintiff cannot pursue claims for monetary damages against KVSP or defendants in their
28 official capacities. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court
1 against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.” Aholelei v.
2 Dep’t of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment
3 prohibits federal courts from hearing a Section 1983 lawsuit in which damages or injunctive relief
4 is sought against a state, its agencies (such as CDCR) or individual prisons, absent “a waiver by
5 the state or a valid congressional override. . . .” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th
6 Cir. 1999). “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief
7 against a state, ‘an arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” See Fireman’s Fund
8 Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal., 302 F.3d 928, 957 n.28 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and
9 citations omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 961 (2003). “The State of California has not waived its
10 Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal
11 court. . . .” Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025–26 (citing Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S.
12 234, 241 (1985)); see also Brown v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009)
13 (finding California Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to
14 Eleventh Amendment immunity).
15 C. Eighth Amendment
16 1. Failure to Protect
17 The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to
18 guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. In particular, prison officials have a
19 duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Id. at 833; Cortez v. Skol,
20 776 F. 3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005);
21 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 &
22 n.3 (9th Cir. 1980).
23 The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by other inmates or from
24 dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are
25 met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is,
26 subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison
27 official is deliberately indifferent if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health
28 or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837.
1 A prisoner may state a § 1983 claim under the Eighth Amendment against prison officials
2 only where the officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the threat of serious harm or injury
3 to an inmate by another prisoner, Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986); see also
4 Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 1989) (deliberately spreading rumor
5 that prisoner is snitch may state claim for violation of right to be protected from violence while in
6 state custody), or by physical conditions at the prison. The official must both be aware of facts
7 from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
8 must also draw the inference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Mere negligent failure to protect an
9 inmate from harm is not actionable under Section 1983. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.
10 Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants let four inmates out of their cells 3-4 hours before
11 they came into Plaintiff’s cell and attacked him and that the inmates told defendants of their plan
12 are not sufficient to state a cognizable claim for failure to protect. Plaintiff’s allegations are
13 conclusory at best and suggest negligence, which is not actionable. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate
14 that Defendants knew that the four inmates would attack Plaintiff 3-4 hours after being let out of
15 their cells. Plaintiff also fails to allege the circumstances surrounding the attack, including how
16 the inmates were able to enter Plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants allowed
17 the inmates into his cell.
18 2. Conditions of Confinement
19 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and
20 from inhumane conditions of confinement. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; Morgan v. Morgensen, 465
21 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, no matter where they are housed, prison officials have a
22 duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical
23 care, and personal safety. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks
24 and citations omitted). To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must
25 “show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference . . .” Labatad v. Corrs. Corp. of Amer.,
26 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Gibson v. Cty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th
27 Cir. 2002)).
28 The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong.
1 First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer, 511
2 U.S. at 834. Second, subjectively, the prison official must “know[ ] of and disregard[ ] an
3 excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310,
4 1313 (9th Cir. 1995). The circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivations are critical in
5 determining whether the conditions complained of are grave enough to form the basis of a viable
6 Eighth Amendment claim. Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731.
7 Temporary placement in administrative segregation or a holding cell has been found not to
8 rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See Stafford v. Doss, No. 2:16-CV-1403-JAM-
9 DMC, 2021 WL 3563490, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021) (four hours in temporary holding cell
10 did not rise to level of Eighth Amendment violation), report and recommendation adopted, 2021
11 WL 4356036 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2021); see also Anderson, 45 F.3d 1310, as amended, 75 F.3d
12 448 (9th Cir. 1995) (placement in administrative segregation for “most of the day” did not satisfy
13 objective prong of Eighth Amendment).
14 Plaintiff fails to state a conditions of confinement claim. Plaintiff alleges that he was
15 placed in a holding cage for over ten hours. Plaintiff has not alleged a serious condition violative
16 of the Eighth Amendment by this temporary placement. Anderson, 45 F.3d at 1315 (no
17 constitutional violation for placement in safety cages where plaintiffs had not shown that sanitary
18 limitations imposed upon them were more than temporary); Chiprez v. Warden, No.1:21-cv-
19 00668-DAD-BAM (PC), 2021 WL 3662390, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021), report and
20 recommendation adopted sub nom. Chiprez v. Warden, No. 1:21-cv-00668-DAD-BAM PC, 2021
21 WL 4192035 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-16588, 2022 WL 4298143 (9th Cir. Sept.
22 19, 2022) (“Temporary deprivations of sanitation, water, and shelter that last only a short amount
23 of time and do not pose a serious threat of harm to the prisoner do not give rise to deprivations
24 that are sufficiently serious to support an Eighth Amendment claim.”).
25 D. Fourteenth Amendment - Property
26 Prisoners have a protected interest in their personal property. Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d
27 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). An authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under
28 the Due Process Clause. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v.
1 Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435–36 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th
2 Cir. 1985). However, “an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee
3 does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the
4 Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”
5 Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533.
6 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were responsible for packing his missing personal
7 property. As this allegation suggests conduct that was an unauthorized deprivation of property,
8 due process is satisfied if there is a meaningful post-deprivation remedy available to Plaintiff.
9 Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy available under
10 California law. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816–17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code
11 §§ 810–95). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable due process claim for the alleged
12 missing property.
13 E. Declaratory Relief
14 To the extent Plaintiff's complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, it is unnecessary. “A
15 declaratory judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of
16 judicial discretion, exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village,
17 333 U.S. 426, 431 (1948). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful
18 purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and
19 afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” United States v.
20 Washington, 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). If this action reaches trial and the jury returns
21 a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, then that verdict will be a finding that Plaintif’s constitutional rights
22 were violated. Accordingly, a declaration that any defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights is
23 unnecessary.
24 F. Injunctive Relief
25 Insofar as Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, any such request is now moot. Plaintiff is no
26 longer housed at Kern Valley State Prison, where he alleges the incidents at issue occurred.
27 Therefore, any injunctive relief he seeks against the officials at Kern Valley State Prison is moot.
28 See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007) (prisoner’s claims for
1 injunctive relief generally become moot upon transfer) (citing Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517,
2 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (holding claims for injunctive relief “relating to [a prison's]
3 policies are moot” when the prisoner has been moved and “he has demonstrated no reasonable
4 expectation of returning to [the prison]”)).
5 IV. Conclusion and Order
6 Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and
7 fails to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Despite being provided with the
8 relevant pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the deficiencies. Further
9 leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
10 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a
11 district judge to this action.
12 Further, for the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be
13 dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.
14 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
16 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
17 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
18 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
19 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page
20 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page
21 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
22 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
23 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
24 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25

26 Dated: June 18, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27

28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11388335. Public record. Not legal advice.