Rayon Jones v. Kelly Santoro, Warden

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-09355
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAYON JONES, G35669, Case No. 25-cv-09355-CRB (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND

10 KELLY SANTORO, Warden, (ECF Nos. 5 & 7) 11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) and frequent litigant in federal 13 court, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials are trying 14 to force plaintiff to “cell up” with other inmates, which would put plaintiff in danger “to be raped 15 and killed.” ECF No. 1 (Compl.) at 3. Plaintiff adds that inmates have “started making threats to 16 plaintiff by saying that they are going to rape and drug plaintiff,” id. at 4, and that prison officials 17 have not taken any measures to protect plaintiff from harm or injury. Plaintiff only names the 18 warden as a defendant without linking the warden or any other prison official in any way to 19 plaintiff’s allegations of wrongdoing. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. Standard of Review 22 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 25 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 26 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 27 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 1 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 2 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 3 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 4 42, 48 (1988). 5 B. Legal Claims 6 The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to 7 guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In particular, 8 prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Id. 9 at 833; Cortez v. Skol, 776 F. 3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015). But the failure of prison officials to 10 protect inmates from attacks by other inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison only 11 violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, 12 objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent 13 to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if 14 he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety by failing to take 15 reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837. 16 Plaintiff’s broad allegations of failure to protect will be dismissed with leave to amend to 17 set forth specific facts sufficient to state a viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 18 safety claim, if possible. Plaintiff must allege specific facts showing how every named prison 19 official knew of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s safety and disregarded that risk by failing to take 20 reasonable steps to abate it. Id. Plaintiff also must link every named prison official with 21 plaintiff’s allegations of wrongdoing so as to show how each named prison official actually and 22 proximately caused the deprivation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 23 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 24 A prison official can only be liable under § 1983 for his or her own misconduct. See 25 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). Under no circumstances can there be liability under 26 § 1983 solely because a prison official is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. See 27 Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as indicated 3 above, within 28 days of this order. The pleading must be simple and concise and must include 4 || the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words FIRST AMENDED 5 COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated 6 || time will result in the dismissal of this action. 7 Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint and 8 all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the amended complaint will not be 9 considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 10 Plaintiff's motions to amend (ECF Nos. 5 & 7) are dismissed as moot, and the clerk is 11 instructed to terminate them. 12 IT ISSO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 3, 2026 a ~ 4s CHARLES R. BREYER nited States District Judge 16

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