Ali Zaerivand v. County of Monterey

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05936
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALI ZAERIVAND, Case No. 25-cv-05936-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

10 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His 14 amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12) is reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 15 DISCUSSION 16 STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 Federal courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress 18 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915A(a). The Court will identify plausible claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, 20 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a 21 defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings are liberally 22 construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim 24 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 25 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 26 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 27 cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 1 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 2 face.” Id. at 570. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 3 be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 4 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 5 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 7 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 8 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 LEGAL CLAIMS 10 Plaintiff alleges that Monterey County Jail was deliberately indifferent to his safety, in 11 violation of the Eighth Amendment. 12 The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to 13 guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The failure of 14 prison officials to protect inmates from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth 15 Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, 16 sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate 17 health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows 18 of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to 19 abate it. Id. at 837. The official must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn 20 that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw that inference. See id. at 837. 21 Section 1983 liability may be imposed on a defendant only if the plaintiff can show that 22 the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. 23 Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). There is no Section 1983 liability simply because an 24 individual supervised the alleged wrongdoer. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 25 1989) (no respondent superior liability, or supervisory liability, under Section 1983, i.e., no 26 liability under theory that one is liable simply because he supervises person who has violated 27 plaintiff’s right). 1 Plaintiff’s Allegations 2 On January 3, 2025, while housed in Monterey County Jail, A-Dorm, plaintiff was abused 3 and physically and verbally assaulted by another inmate. Deputies took plaintiff’s report, but 4 classification took no legal action against the attacker and only moved the attacker to another 5 housing unit. Due to internal jail rules, because plaintiff was classified as “other race,” he was 6 housed with African American inmates who bullied him because he was a minority and who often 7 unfairly made plaintiff do double duty, such as a restroom cleaning. The “keyholder of Brothers 8 (John Osborn)” threatened to identify plaintiff as a snitch if plaintiff complained to prison 9 officials. On February 15, 2025, plaintiff was attacked and threatened by these inmates. That 10 same day, plaintiff requested to meet with classification so he could discuss his concerns. 11 Classification did not respond until February 24, 2025, and asked, “What would you like to talk to 12 us about.” Plaintiff wrote to Deputy Cosio, “I would like to talk about being abused and 13 assaulted.” On February 25, 2025, Deputy Cosio responded, “We will be out to speak to you,” but 14 no one contacted plaintiff. On February 27, 2025, plaintiff was attacked during shower time. 15 Plaintiff immediately wrote to Deputy Cosio, “I am still waiting to talk to a classification officer.” 16 Deputy Caballera responded the next day, “I will speak with you soon,” but no one met with 17 plaintiff. On March 14, 2025, plaintiff was attacked by the same inmate who had attacked him 18 previously, resulting in great bodily injury to plaintiff, including a “deep injury” on his face and 19 forehead which required stitches. See Dkt. No. 12 at 2-5. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: “1. I 20 want to file a lawsuit against County of Monterey for violation of Eighth Amendment. 2. Apply 21 the law through judiciary system with apperance (sic) of both Plaintiff and Defendant and Joury 22 (sic).” Dkt. No. 12 at 3. 23 Discussion 24 The amended complaint does not state a cognizable municipal liability claim against 25 Monterey County. Plaintiff has not alleged that the alleged constitutional violations were because 26 of an expressly adopted official county policy, a long-standing county practice or custom, or the 27 decision of a final county policymaker. Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, 710 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th ] liable for constitutional violations simply because it employs or supervises a person who has 2 || violated plaintiffs constitutional rights. The Court dismisses the amended complaint for failure to 3 state a claim. 4 The case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court has previously advised plaintiff of the 5 deficiencies in his claims, and granted him leave to amend. Plaintiff has been unable to correct the 6 || deficiencies, with his amended complaint simply naming a different defendant but not correcting 7 the substantive issue with his claim. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that dismissal 8 || with prejudice is appropriate. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 9 || (9th Cir. 2009) (district court may deny leave to amend where there have been repeated failures to 10 || cure deficiencies by amendment). 11 The Clerk is requested to close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. E 13 Dated: November 4, 2025 14

16 United States District Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28