Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ledesma v. Tyree

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 24, 2016

JOSE LEDESMA, Plaintiff,
v.
J. TYREE, et al., Defendants.

         SCREENING 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)

         Plaintiff 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[1] 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 amended complaint.

         Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, dated October 13, 2015. (ECF. No. 9)

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The 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. § 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. § 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         A 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).

         II. SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

         On or 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.

         For the 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.

         All defecation and x-rays showed up negative for contraband.

         Plaintiff submitted a grievance, but the appeals coordinator failed to respond.

         Plaintiff 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 14th Amendment.

         III. CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT

         a. Legal Standards

         "It 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.