(PC) Clark v. CSP Solano

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02666
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER C. CLARK, No. 2:24-cv-2666 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CSP SOLANO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 23 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 2 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 3 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 6 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 7 which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The 8 court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 9 Plaintiff complains about not being protected from violence at the hands of another 10 inmate. Plaintiff is informed that under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty to 11 protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 12 825, 833 (1994) (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted). However, “not . . . 13 every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional 14 liability for prison officials responsible for the victim’s safety.” Id. at 834. A prison official may 15 be held liable for an assault suffered by one inmate at the hands of another only where the 16 assaulted inmate can show that the injury is sufficiently serious, and that the prison official was at 17 least deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm. Id. at 834, 837. Thus, the relevant inquiry is 18 whether prison officials, “acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently 19 substantial risk of serious damage to his future health.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation omitted). 20 To be deliberately indifferent, the “official must both be aware of facts from which the inference 21 could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 22 inference.” Id. While plaintiff describes his injuries, he does not include details about what, if 23 any, information was known to the correctional officers before the attack, nor does he identify his 24 attacker. 25 The only defendant identified by plaintiff is California State Prison, Solano. The Eleventh 26 Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state 27 agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 28 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1 |} 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not consented to 2 || suit. Therefore, California State Prison, Solano is not a proper defendant. If plaintiff chooses to 3 || amend, he must identify the correctional officer he references in his allegations as a named 4 || defendant(s). 5 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 6 || make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 7 || complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 8 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 10 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 11 | shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 12 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 13 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 14 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 15 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 16 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 17 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 18 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 19 || be dismissed. 20 | Dated: February 4, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce 21 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 | 1 clar2666.14 26 27 28