(PC) Gulbronson v. Jones
2:21-cv-01296
E.D. Cal.Dec 6, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Eric Gulbronson, a pro se state prisoner at California State Prison–Sacramento, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint naming 26 CSP‑Sac staff.
- Allegations include: denial of a Kosher diet for over a year; another inmate breaking cell glass and severely injuring plaintiff’s left eye; defendant Lujan throwing away an inmate grievance; placement in a "strip‑cell" Oct 2020–Jan 7, 2021; alleged illegal touching by defendant Leatherman during a search; and denial of prescribed liquid nutritional supplements during a hunger strike.
- Plaintiff seeks relief for access‑to‑courts, Eighth Amendment (conditions/failure to protect/medical), First Amendment retaliation/conspiracy, and Free Exercise claims.
- Plaintiff requested in forma pauperis status; the court granted IFP and explained fee collection under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
- The court conducted statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, found the complaint failed to state a federal claim due largely to lack of factual linkage between most defendants and the alleged deprivations, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend (30 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading/linkage under §1983 | Gulbronson alleges various deprivations and names 26 defendants. | Most defendants are not tied to specific acts; complaint contains conclusory allegations. | Dismissed for failure to state a claim because plaintiff did not link most defendants to any specific wrongdoing; leave to amend granted. |
| Access to courts (First Amendment) | Lujan destroyed plaintiff’s grievance, blocking litigation about the eye injury. | Complaint does not allege specific prejudice to existing or contemplated litigation. | Claim against Lujan fails: plaintiff did not plead the requisite actual injury to access to courts. |
| Conspiracy and retaliation | Multiple defendants conspired to retaliate (strip‑cell, deprivation, transfer). | Allegations are conclusory and lack facts showing an agreement or meeting of minds. | Conspiracy/retaliation claims dismissed for lack of factual support; plaintiff may amend to add specific factual allegations. |
| Eighth Amendment — failure to protect/medical care | Plaintiff alleges an assault causing eye injury and denial/delay of medical/nutritional care; Leatherman allegedly touched plaintiff inappropriately. | Complaint does not sufficiently tie defendants (except maybe the assailant) to deliberate indifference, or show harm/prejudice from withheld grievance. | Court found allegations insufficiently pleaded to state Eighth Amendment claims as to most defendants; dismissal without prejudice, leave to amend. |
| Conditions of confinement / Free Exercise (Kosher diet; strip‑cell; hunger strike) | Denial of Kosher diet and deprivation in strip‑cell caused physical and mental harm. | Plaintiff offers conclusory claims without showing the deprivations met the objective and subjective Eighth Amendment standards or that religious burden lacked penological justification. | Court concluded claims are not adequately pleaded; plaintiff may amend to allege facts showing substantial deprivation and deliberate indifference or burdens on religious exercise. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard for prisoner suits)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (frivolousness standard in Ninth Circuit)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (threadbare allegations insufficient under Rule 8)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (duty to protect; subjective deliberate indifference)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access to courts requires actual injury)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (reasonableness test for prison regulations affecting religion)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of prison retaliation claim)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (linkage and municipal liability principles)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (liability requires connection between officials’ actions and harm)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague and conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121 (10th Cir. 1989) (elements for conspiracy pleading)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoners’ right of access to courts regarding legal resources)