United States District Court, E.D. California
FIRST SCREENING ORDER (DOC. 1) ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT CONSEL (DOC. 10)
K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dwight Larry Bradford, is a prisoner in the custody of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has stated
cognizable deliberate indifference claims under the Eighth
Amendment against Defendants Officer Ruelas, Officer J. Curry
and Morales. The deficiencies in Plaintiff's pleading on
other claims may be able to be remedied on amendment.
However, since Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is
granted, he has no duty to respond to this order at this
time. Deadlines will be set depending on whether the Court is
able to locate counsel willing to represent Plaintiff.
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,
malicious, 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);
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). A complaint will be
dismissed if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to
allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory.
See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901
F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Summary of the Complaint
is currently housed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility
(“SATF”) in Corcoran, California, where the
incident of which he complains occurred. Plaintiff names the
following defendants: Warden Stu Sherman; Associate Warden
Reynoso; Second Watch Captain S. Marsh; Second Watch Yard
Officer, Ruelas; Second Watch Tower Officer J. Curry; and
tram truck driver Morales. Plaintiff alleges that, on the
morning of March 12, 2017, Morales drove the tram truck
containing breakfast and lunch to the D-Facility. When inmate
porters arrived to unload the food, they encountered a foul
odor which smelled like human feces. They informed Morales of
the smell, but Morales ordered them to unload the truck and
push the carts of food into the building for inmate
inmate porters complied, but when they went inside the
building, they discovered what they believed to be human
feces smeared on the side of the food carts and lunch boxes.
Ruelas was notified and ordered the inmates to clean the
feces off the carts and lunch boxes. The inmate porters
protested. Tower officer J. Curry called the inmate porters
to the gun tower and instructed them not to tell the other
inmates about the contaminated food. During this
conversation, other inmate porters passed out the
contaminated food to inmates in the building. Plaintiff
received his food and ate it before an unknown sergeant
showed up and recalled all of the contaminated food.
Plaintiff became ill with stomach cramps, vomiting and lack
of sleep which allegedly resulted in post-traumatic stress
disorder. Plaintiff alleges that Warden Sherman, Associate
Warden Reynoso, and Captain Marsh all contributed to “a
systematic pattern of events by failure to protect inmates
from the spread of H. Pylori which is transmitted by fecal
alleges a violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights and seeks monetary damages. As discussed
below, these allegations state a cognizable claim against
Officer Ruelas, Officer Curry, and Morales, but not against
any of the other named defendants. As Plaintiff may be able
to correct the deficiencies in his pleading, he is provided
the pleading requirements, the standards for claims for the
rights he contends have been violated, and leave to file a
first amended complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
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. Pro. 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. Pro. 8(a). “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.
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 (2009), quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is
plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual
allegations are accepted as true, but ...