United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS
CASE BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM (ECF NO. 12.) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 30
S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January
8, 2015, Plaintiff and a co-plaintiff, William Stafford,
filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) On
September 2, 2015, the court dismissed the Complaint for
failure to state a claim, severed Plaintiffs' claims, and
directed the Clerk to open a new case for Plaintiff. (ECF No.
2.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint in his
new case. (Id.)
October 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 8.) On June 24, 2016, the court dismissed
the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim,
with leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.)
21, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint, which
is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 12.)
forma pauperis statute provides that “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). “Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading
standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
exceptions, ” none of which applies to section 1983
actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506,
512 (2002); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). A complaint must contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the
defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual
allegations are not required, but “[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)), and
courts “are 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). While factual allegations are accepted
as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. However, “the liberal pleading standard . . .
applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations.”
Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989).
“[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint
may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union
Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
is a civilly detained patient held under the Sexually Violent
Predator Act at Coalinga State Hospital (CSH) in Coalinga,
California, in the custody of the California Department of
State Hospitals (CDSH), where the events at issue in the
Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names
one defendant, Pam Ahlin (“Defendant”).
makes the following allegations. Plaintiff, an
African-American male, has resided at CSH since 2011.
Plaintiff is housed at CSH for the purpose of receiving
psychiatric care and treatment for a mental disorder. CSH is
located in Fresno County, an area known to harbor the fungus
Coccidiodomycosis in the soil, which can cause the disease
known as Valley Fever in individuals residing, visiting, or
even passing through an endemic area.
Pam Ahlin is and was the Executive Director of CSH, and she
is now the Executive Director of CDSH. At all times relevant
to Plaintiff's complaint defendant Ahlin was in the seat
of authority in Sacramento. Defendant Ahlin arranged for
Plaintiff to be sent to CSH for involuntary mental health
holds Defendant responsible for placing him in danger of
exposure to Valley Fever, with intent to harm. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant had direct and specific scientific and
medical health knowledge of the dangers of Valley Fever from
studies done at nearby Pleasant Valley State Prison.
CSH's policies, practice, and the acts of Defendant
constitute deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's
constitutional and statutory rights to be free of exposure to
Valley Fever and to be protected against windblown spores.
Valley Fever is a serious threat to the health of
African-Americans. As the result of negligence in
Defendant's decision-making, Plaintiff is held in an
environment that could potentially cause him to experience a
permanent crippling physical injury if he becomes infected.
Plaintiff is not responsible for his placement in the
dangerous and threatening environment that harbors Valley
requests monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, costs of suit, and attorney's fees.