United States District Court, E.D. California
JARED M. VILLERY, Plaintiff,
JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Defendants
FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND FORWARDING
SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CERTAIN
DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO STATE
A CLAIM (ECF No. 22)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jared M. Villery (“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
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
first amended complaint, filed on June 16, 2016, is currently
before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 22.)
filed this action on June 29, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On July 8,
2015, the then-assigned Magistrate Judge screened
Plaintiff's original complaint and found that Plaintiff
failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 7.)
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening
order. (ECF No. 10.) While that motion was pending, the
then-assigned Magistrate Judge retired from the bench, and
the undersigned was assigned to this matter.
September 2, 2015, the then-assigned District Judge granted
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in part. The
Court's July 8, 2015 screening order and certain other
proceedings were vacated, and the matter was referred to the
undersigned for further proceedings. Shortly thereafter, the
currently-assigned District Judge was appointed, and this
matter was re-assigned to him. (ECF No. 12.)
the resolution of several motions, on April 8, 2016, the
Court issued a screening order finding certain claims in
Plaintiff's original complaint cognizable, and ordering
Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint, or notify the
Court of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable
claims. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff then moved for an extension
of time to amend his complaint (ECF No. 20), which was
granted, (ECF No. 21.)
first amended complaint is now before the court.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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). 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, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive
screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible,
which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court
to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129
S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United
States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.
2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran,
California. However, the alleged events took place at
California State Prison-Los Angeles County
(“LAC”) in Lancaster, California; the California
Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi,
California; and at CSATF.
names as defendants former CDCR secretary Jeffery Beard and
current secretary of CDCR Scott Kernan.
further names as defendants the following individuals
employed at LAC: Senior Psychologist Dr. Richard Kendall, and
Staff Psychologist Dr. K. Acosta.
also names as defendants the following individuals employed
at CCI: Facility Captain Jay Jones; Psychiatrist Dr. Majid
Naficy; Correctional Counselor II. Alicia Guerrero;
Psychologist Dr. A. Aithal; Psychologist Dr. Jennifer
Seymour; Clinical Social Worker A. Carrizales; and
Correctional Counselor I J. Woodard.
Plaintiff names as defendants the following individuals
employed at CSATF: Captain M. Pallares; Correctional
Counselor II Michael Fisher; Correctional Counselor I S.
Hernandez; Correctional Counselor I A. Miranda; and
Psychologist Dr. A. Grimmig.
is an individual of mixed race heritage, with an African
American father and a Caucasian mother. However,
Plaintiff's heritage is not readily apparent from his
appearance, as he appears to be only white. For their own
safety, inmates are forced to only associate with inmates of
their own race. Upon incarceration Plaintiff associated with
black inmates due to the fact that white inmates will not
associate with inmates of mixed race. CDCR classified
Plaintiff as white. This classification; the extremely
violent nature of the general population; Plaintiff's
appearance; and Plaintiff's association with black
inmates all lead to a high exposure to excessive levels of
violence during the first four years of his incarceration.
was placed in custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility
(“TTCF”) in Los, Angeles, California, until July
19, 2005. On September 25, 2005 Plaintiff was transferred to
Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). At both
institutions Plaintiff suffered through numerous fights,
assaults, and riots. Plaintiff also witnessed several acts of
violence include stabbings, at least one murder, and the
results of numerous suicides. Plaintiff alleges that broken
bones and bloodshed were common spectacles.
stayed at KVSP until August 3, 2007, when two white inmates
attempted to kill him. Plaintiff was attacked with an inmate
manufactured knife, stabbed once in the back a quarter of an
inch to the left of his spine, and repeatedly punched and
kicked in the head and torso by these inmates. After this
incident Plaintiff was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (“PTSD”). Due to the symptoms of this
disorder, Plaintiff was housed alone in a cell for over seven
months for his safety and the safety of other inmates. During
this time he stayed in Administrative Segregation (“Ad
Seg.”), and Plaintiff was reclassified into the
Sensitive Needs Program (“SNY”) because his
racial classification prevented him from safely remaining in
the general population.
continues to suffer from PTSD. Due to this disorder he
suffers with symptoms such as hypervigilance to sudden
movements around him and other stimuli that often trigger
flashbacks and violent defensive reactions. Plaintiff also
suffers from frequent nightmares about being attacked, and
other incidents of violence he has witnessed and experienced.
The most dangerous trigger of Plaintiff's PTSD is being
forced to live with and attempt to sleep around other
inmates. These conditions leave it virtually impossible for
Plaintiff to sleep, and Plaintiff has suffered for years with
minimal sleep due to his symptoms. These conditions have
forced Plaintiff to adopt abnormal sleep patterns, where he
is only able to sleep fully when his cellmate is not in the
cell with him. The longer Plaintiff goes without sleep, the
worse his reactions get.
the affect this lack of sleep has had on Plaintiff's
condition over the last eight years, custody and mental
health staff has repeatedly refused to take any steps to
house Plaintiff in single cell occupancy. Plaintiff was
released into the SNY program on March 6, 2008, and was
involved in two unreported cell fights within the week. On
March 15, 2008, he was moved to a new cell where he remained
until October 8, 2009. During this time Plaintiff's
reactions led to multiple altercations between him and his
cellmate. On October 8, 2009 he was transferred to LAC.
the course of two years Plaintiff went through a pattern of
being housed with other inmates until conflict arose, and
then he was moved into a single cell for a period of no more
than a few months until being placed with another cellmate.
During this time Plaintiff met with defendant Acosta, a
psychologist, on three different occasions on August 2, 2013;
August 13, 2013; and August 30, 2013. During these meetings
Plaintiff stressed his anxiety and the violent reactions
he'd had toward former cellmates. Plaintiff explained the
way in which these reactions made him fear that he would
injure himself or someone else. However, Acosta refused to
recommend single celled housing.
September 25, 2013, Acosta informed Plaintiff that defendant
Kendall, the senior psychologist at the time at LAC, had
forwarded an e-mail to all mental health staff at LAC
instructing them to refrain from making any single cell
housing recommendations. Acosta stated that this policy was
being dictated by custody staff, and that CDCR was putting
pressure on mental health staff due to overcrowding.
October 3, 2013, when Plaintiff was forced to move in with
another inmate, he was involved in a confrontation with his
new cellmate when the cellmate walked into the cell behind
Plaintiff without forewarning. Plaintiff advanced on the man,
but the inmate hastily exited the cell and refused to return.
Plaintiff then met with Acosta for the final time, pleading
for help to obtain single cell housing, but she again