Adams v. Cal. Corr. Inst.
| Decision Date | 01 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. EDCV 16-1678-AB (KK) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | PAUL ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al., Defendants. |
Plaintiffs1 Paul Adams, Phillip L. Dorsey, and Ezequiel Monarrez ("Plaintiffs"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, have filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code, section 1983 ("Section 1983") alleging defendants California Correctional Institution ("CCI"), K. Holland, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), Jeffrey Beard, and Jerry G. Brown ("Defendants") violated their First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege Defendants violatedTitle 18 of the United States Code, section 241, Conspiracy Against Rights; Title 42 of the United States Code, section 1985, Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights; and battery and assault under California law. As discussed below, the Court dismisses the FAC with leave to amend.
On July 24, 2016, Plaintiffs constructively filed2 a complaint pursuant to Section 1983. Dkt. 1, Compl.3 Plaintiffs sued Defendants Jeffrey Beard and K. Holland, in both their individual and official capacity, CCI, and CDCR. Id. at 3.
On August 15, 2016, Plaintiffs constructively filed the FAC against Defendants Jeffrey Beard, K. Holland, and Jerry Brown, in their individual and official capacities, CCI, and CDCR. Dkt. 18, FAC at 3-4. In the FAC, Plaintiffs makes two primary allegations: (1) prisoners are being exposed to airborne asbestos particles ("Asbestos Complaint"), id. at 1-27; and (2) prisoners are forced to drink and bathe in water contaminated by human feces ("Water Complaint"). Id. at 28-48.
Within the Asbestos Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants CDCR, Jeffrey Beard, CCI, and K. Holland. Plaintiffs assert the following four claims against all four defendants:
In raising these claims, Plaintiffs allege the following facts:
On or about June 10, 2016, Plaintiff Adams observed a black substance "that had fibers sticking out of every direction" scattered "all over the yard" and "outside his housing unit in every direction." Id. at 10-11. According to Plaintiff Dorsey, a fellow inmate informed him that the black fibers contain asbestos and that "there is asbestos everywhere" including "in Clark Hall Upper and Lower, mostly in the floors; . . . in Davis and in Willard Hall, on the pipes and in the chase, and in the floors . . . in the chow hall . . . on the cilling [sic] . . . and in the above the cilling [sic] areas." Id. at 12. Additionally, Plaintiff Adams alleges there are at least "six known locations of the CCI prison facilities" that contain "cage like doors," referred to as "asbestos locks," which are meant to keep people out of the allegedly asbestos-exposed areas. Id. at 12, 20.
According to Plaintiffs, "the asbestos is easily disturbed" and "becomes airborn [sic] on a daily basis." Id. at 20. Plaintiffs appear to allege there are two ways the asbestos becomes disturbed: (1) rodents around the prison dislodge the black fibers and scatter the fibers around the prison yard; and (2) prison officialsengage in improper "asbestos cleanups" that disturb the asbestos causing the particles to become airborne. Id. at 10-11, 20-21, 25. Consequently, Plaintiffs claim they "have been breathing the asbestos fibers by direct inhalation, on a daily basis, and are subjected to exposure to an extremely malignant cancer." Id. at 47; Dkt. 18-1 at 2, 5.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants Holland and Beard "sought and mandated that officers, employees, and all none [sic] prisoner personnel be informed" of the presence of asbestos at CCI, in addition to requiring "them to sign a waiver" giving "consent to reside in the dangerous environment." FAC at 14, 22, 26. Prisoners, on the other hand, were never "adequately informed" of the presence of asbestos. Id. at 14. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege Defendants Holland and Beard "are conspiring a cover up to attempt to clean up the asbestos, in the absence of proper permits, orders, and notices . . . which is likely disposing the asbestos in an environment that would endanger others." Id. at 21, 25. Plaintiffs conclude "the lack of a notice to prisoners' PLAINTIFFS' [sic] proves that [Defendants Holland and Beard] deliberately exposed them to asbestos with a knowing disregard for human life." Id.
Within the Water Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants CDCR, Jeffrey Beard, CCI, K. Holland, and Jerry Brown. Plaintiffs assert the following five claims against all five Defendants:
Plaintiffs additionally assert a First Amendment retaliation violation solely against Defendant K. Holland. Id. at 39.
In raising these six claims, Plaintiffs allege the following facts:
On or about August 10, 2016, Plaintiff Dorsey received information from a fellow inmate alleging "the water [at CCI] is tainted by human waste." Id. at 28. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants Holland and Beard are aware of the water contamination because they received notice from Tehachapi Fire Department, Station 916, that the water at CCI was tainted and should not be consumed. Id. Because of the contamination, "the officers and employees of this prison are ordered/commanded not to drink the water." Id. at 29. Instead, Defendants provide bottled water to CCI prison officials not only for drinking purposes, but also to wash their hands. Id. at 48; Dkt 18-1 at 3, 6. Plaintiffs claim the water "smells bad, taste[s] nasty, [and] is creamy white in color." Id. Plaintiffs allege Defendants have engaged "in a conspiracy to prevent CDCR inmate MEDICAL PROVIDERS from diagnosing inmates with harms related to water, and to falsely diagnose inmates with some other unrelated matter" in an effort to hide the water contamination. FAC at 40.
As a result of being forced to drink the contaminated water, Plaintiffs allege they suffer from the following symptoms on a daily basis: "nausea, headaches, dizziness, forgetfulness, depression, odd mood swings, pain in the lower belly organs; shortness of breath, blurry vision, bloated belly, tremors, cold sweats, numbness in arms and hands, numbness in the side of the head, and loss of short term memory." Id. Plaintiffs allege they suffer "from mental and emotionalanxiety, knowing that [they are] forced to consume water with human feces in it." Id. Consequently, Plaintiffs assert they "have lowed [their] normal water daily intake . . . and only drink about a cup or so a day" to avoid excess exposure. Id.
As a result of their alleged injuries from both the asbestos exposure and water contamination, Plaintiffs seek, at minimum, $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages awarded to each Plaintiff, as well an injunction requiring an immediate evacuation of CCI and a lifetime of limitless medical treatment. Id. at 7. Lastly, Plaintiffs seek appointment of counsel to represent them in this matter5 and that their case be designated as a class action.6 Id.
As Plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen the FAC and is required to dismiss the case at any time if it concludes the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim for screening purposes, the Court applies the same pleading standard from Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 8") as it would when evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 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).
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim "where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory." Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). In considering whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all of the material factual allegations in it. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Although a complaint need not include detailed factual allegations, it "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556...
To continue reading
Request your trial