Opinion

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-03275-EFB (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to 42

18 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF

20 Nos. 2, 4.

21 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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

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

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

25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

26 ////

27 ////

28 ////

1 II. Screening Requirement and Standards

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

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

4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion

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

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

7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

8 This standard is echoed in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires that courts dismiss a

9 case in which a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis at any time if it determines, among other

10 things, that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be

11 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” “[The]

12 term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion,

13 but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)

14 (discussing the predecessor to modern § 1915(e)(2), former § 1915(d)). Thus, § 1915(e)(2)

15 allows judges to dismiss a claim based on factual allegations that are clearly baseless, such as

16 facts describing “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-38.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 678.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 III. Screening Order

10 A. Allegations of the Complaint.

11 Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by other inmates while in the C-facility main yard at

12 California State Prison, Sacramento. ECF No. 1. Defendant M. Long was the main yard observer

13 at the time. Id. Plaintiff fell to the ground, unconscious, where he was left for several minutes by

14 responding correctional officers J. Ortega, Tyen, M. Smith, MacNamara, and Dalucci. Id. The

15 responding officers then escorted plaintiff to a holding cage without providing or calling for

16 medical aid. Id. While in the holding cage, plaintiff was strip-searched by J. Ortega and/or Tyen

17 and Smith. Id. Lieutenant Z. Madrigal refused to allow plaintiff to watch video footage of the

18 assault. Id.

19 B. Analysis

20 Plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable claim against defendants J. Ortega, Tyen, M.

21 Smith, MacNamara, and Dalucci for failing to provide or summon medical care after he was

22 knocked unconscious. To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on indifference to

23 medical needs, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he had a serious medical need and (2) the

24 defendant’s response to that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

25 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical

26 need exists if the failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the

27 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. To act with deliberate

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

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

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

3 Plaintiff has also stated a potentially cognizable Fourth Amendment claim against

4 responding officers Ortega, Tyen, and M. Smith for conducting his strip search in the holding

5 cell, in view of other inmates and staff. Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333 (9th Cir.

6 1988)

7 Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against defendant M. Long, the yard

8 observer on duty at the time of the assault. To state a failure-to-protect claim against an official,

9 an inmate must allege: (1) that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of

10 serious harm and (2) that the official was deliberately indifferent to his safety. Id. “Deliberate

11 indifference” occurs when an official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s

12 safety. Id. at 837. “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be

13 drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id.

14 Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that Long was aware of facts from which he could infer

15 that plaintiff would be assaulted and that he so inferred.

16 Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim against defendant Z. Madrigal. Plaintiff does not

17 allege that he was denied access to the video footage in connection with a disciplinary or other

18 proceeding. Compare Saenz v. Roque, No. 1:24-cv-01140-EPG (PC), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

19 233313, at *14-15 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2025). The court is aware of no authority holding that a

20 prisoner has a free-standing due process right to view such footage.

21 Plaintiff alleges at various points in his complaint that defendants violated a state prison

22 regulation. Such a violation does not support a federal right of action. Nible v. Fink, 828 Fed.

23 Appx. 463 (9th Cir. 2020) (violations of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations do not

24 create private right of action).

25 Plaintiff’s claim against defendants Lynch fails because there is no respondeat superior

26 liability under § 1983, and plaintiff’s complaint lacks allegations showing Lynch’s personal

27 involvement in the incident or some wrongful conduct on his part that bears a sufficient causal

28 connection to the incident. Felarca v. Birgeneau, 891 F.3d 809, 819-20 (9th Cir. 2018) (“An

1 official may be liable as a supervisor only if either (1) he or she was personally involved in the

2 constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection exists between the supervisor’s

3 wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.”).

4 Leave to Amend. The court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended

5 complaint to attempt to cure the defects identified in this order.

6 Any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s

7 direction to state each claim in a short and plain manner. The amended complaint must contain

8 facts – not legal conclusions – supporting each element of the claims alleged.

9 Any amended complaint must not join unrelated claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10 18(a) allows a plaintiff to assert multiple claims when they are against a single defendant.

11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit

12 where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions

13 or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the

14 action.” Unrelated claims against different defendants must therefore be pursued in separate

15 lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is intended “not only

16 to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to

17 ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees— for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to

18 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the

19 required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id.

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

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

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

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

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

25 It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).

26 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the

27 amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

28 ////

] Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself

2 | without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L-.R. 220. This is because an amended

3 || complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the

4 | earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114

5 || F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter

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

7 || 1967)).

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

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

10 || See Local Rule 110.

11 | IV. Summary of Order

12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

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

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

15 accordance with the notice to the custodial agency filed concurrently herewith;

16 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) alleges, for screening purposes, potentially cognizable

17 Eighth Amendment claims against defendants J. Ortega, Tyen, M. Smith, MacNamara,

18 and Dalucci and Fourth Amendment claims against J. Ortega, Tyen, and M. Smith.

19 4. All other claims are dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of service of this order.

20 Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.

21 5. | Within thirty days plaintiff shall return the notice below advising the court whether he

22 elects to proceed with the cognizable claims or file an amended complaint. If the former

23 option is selected and returned, the court will enter an order directing service at that time.

24 In addition, the court will direct defendants to respond to the pending motions for

25 preservation of evidence.

26 6. Failure to comply with any part of this order may result in dismissal of this action.

27 || Dated: August 10, 2026

28 EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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-03275-EFB (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION

14 JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby elects to:

18

19 (1) ______ proceed only with the Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims against J.

20 Ortega, Tyen, M. Smith, MacNamara, and Dalucci identified in the court’s screening order.

21

22 OR

23

24 (2) ______ delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint.

25

26 _________________________________

27 Plaintiff

28 Dated: