United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
ADAME, TYREE, AND LUNDY FOR EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION BASED
ON CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT, AND ALL REMAINING CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY,
DUE IN 20 DAYS (DOC. 9)
Jose Ledesma ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This Court previously screened Plaintiff's
initial complaint and found that it stated claims under the
Eighth Amendment against Defendants Tyree and Lundy for
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, but not other
claims. ECF No. 9. The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an
before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint,
dated October 13, 2015. (ECF. No. 9)
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915A(a). The
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous
or malicious, " that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. Â§
1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint is required to contain "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief . . . ." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed
factual allegations are not required, but A[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
Aare not required to indulge unwarranted inferences."
Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681
(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal 556
U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true,
legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility
of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility
standard. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
about October 26, 2011, Plaintiff arrived at the California
Corrections Institution. He was held in the "receiving
and release" area and subjected to a strip search by
Officers Adame and Medrano. After the strip search, Officers
Adame and Medrano placed Plaintiff in waist chains, put mits
over Plaintiffs hands, shackled Plaintiff's ankles, and
taped Plaintiff's boxers to Plaintiff's thighs.
next 16 days, Plaintiff was kept on contraband watch. The
holding tank is 2 to 3 feet from the entrance door, and the
bottom has a 6 to 7" gap. Plaintiff was very cold. The
tank was dirty and bed-infested. Defendant Adame told
Plaintiff "after tonight your [sic] going to wish you
had cooperated with us and worked with us from the
beginning." There was no blanket, mattress, shower,
change of clothes, or tooth brush. The restraints were kept
on throughout so that Plaintiff could not stretch. The
restraints cut Plaintiff's wrists and ankles. Bright
lights were kept on at all times.
defecation and x-rays showed up negative for contraband.
submitted a grievance, but the appeals coordinator failed to
asserts claims for cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth Amendment, violation of the First Amendment
access to the courts, and retaliation in violation of the
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT
is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in
prison and the conditions under which [the prisoner] is
confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth
Amendment." Helling v. McKinney,509 U.S. 25,
31 (1993); see also Farmer v. Brennan,511 U.S. 825,
832 (1994). Conditions of confinement may, consistent with
the Constitution, be restrictive and harsh. SeeRhodes v. Chapman,452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981);
Morgan v. Morgensen,465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.
2006); Osolinski v. Kane,92 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.
1996); Jordan v. Gardner,986 F.2d 1521, 1531 (9th
Cir. 1993) (en banc). Prison officials must,
however, provide prisoners with "food, clothing,
shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety."
Toussaint v. McCarthy,801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir.
1986), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v.
Connor, 515 ...