Foster v. Crosby

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MICHAEL BARKARRI FOSTER, Case No. 22-cv-00878-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING THE v. LEAVE TO AMEND 10 C. CROSBY, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 14 Plaintiff Michael Barkarri Foster’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint states a claim 15 against only one of 15 defendants. He may file an amended complaint on or before July 16 11, 2022 that alleges facts to tie the other 14 defendants to any alleged wrongdoing. 17 Failure to file a proper amended complaint by July 11, 2022, or a failure to comply in 18 every respect with the instructions given in this order, may result in the dismissal of those 19 defendants. 21 A. Standard of Review 22 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 23 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 24 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 25 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 26 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 27 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 1 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 2 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 3 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 4 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 5 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 6 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 7 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 8 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 9 (9th Cir. 1994). 10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 11 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 12 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 13 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 14 B. Legal Claims 15 Foster alleges that in February 2021 prison guards at Pelican Bay State Prison 16 battered, kicked, punched (and twice stabbed) him, thereby violating the Eighth 17 Amendment. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) He names 15 defendants, but in his allegations he 18 describes only the actions of Sergeant Puente, who is alleged to have ordered the opening 19 of Foster’s cell door “so that I can be physically harmed.” (Id.) 20 Foster has stated a claim against Puente, but not against any of the other defendants. 21 To state a claim against a defendant, he must specifically describe that defendant’s actions. 22 “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, 23 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform 24 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff 25 complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. 26 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation must be 27 individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant 1 Foster should be aware that naming “Warden” as defendant is not sufficient to tie 2 liability to anyone, especially not against a supervisory defendant. There is no respondeat 3 superior liability under § 1983, see Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), 4 which means that a person is not automatically held responsible simply because he or she 5 is a supervisor of an employee who commits a wrong. It is not enough that the supervisor 6 merely has a supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the 7 supervisor “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed 8 to act to prevent them.” Id. Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified 9 immunity where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because 10 such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their 11 subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-82. Simply put, a person 12 cannot be held liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were 13 integral participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th 14 Cir. 2018). 15 Foster mentions that doctors, including Dr. Thomas, did not take his injuries 16 “seriously.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 4.) Thomas is not listed as a defendant. If Foster 17 means to raise allegations against persons regarding the medical care of injuries, he must 18 name each person as a defendant and state specific facts against each person that show 19 deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. A prison official is deliberately 20 indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and 21 disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 22 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) 23 Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to file an amended 24 complaint in which Foster puts forth allegations in which he describes the exact actions 25 each person took. Because he has stated a claim against Puente, he need only repeat the 26 allegations against Puente he made in the original complaint. 27 2 The complaint is DISMISSED in part with leave to file an amended complaint on or 3 || before July 11, 2022. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 4 |} number used in this order (22-00878 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED 5 || COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear 6 || on this Court’s form. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous 7 || complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes 8 || to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 9 || 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from any prior complaints by 10 || reference. 11 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may in dismissal 2 of the fourteen defendants against whom no facts are currently alleged under Federal Rule 5 13 of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: May 31, 2022 . \f CE 16 WIELIAM H. ORRICK 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28