1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Case No. 25-cv-02422 BLF (PR) 11 DAVID ROB ERTS, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 12 Plaintiff, LEAVE TO AMEND 13 v.
14 SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, 15 Defendant. 16
17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against Salinas Valley State Prison, where he is currently confined. Dkt. No. 1.1 20 Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate 21 order. 22 23 DISCUSSION 24 I. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 5 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 7 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 8 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 9 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Claims 11 Plaintiff alleges the following: “When I arrived here [SVSP] on the yard, 12 ‘Sargeants’ and ‘Lieutenants’ didn’t want to find me a cell, so they made me sleep in a 13 ‘ASU clinic’ with no mattress, water, bathroom….” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He seeks damages. 14 Id. at 3. It appears that Plaintiff may not have exhausted administrative remedies before 15 filing this action. Id. at 1-2. 16 Liberally construed, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to state an Eighth 17 Amendment regarding conditions of confinement. The Constitution does not mandate 18 comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 19 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions 20 under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See 21 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). The Amendment imposes duties on prison 22 officials who must provide all prisoners with the basic necessities of life such as food, 23 clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 24 832; DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 25 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). 26 A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: 1 (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 2 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official 3 possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). 4 In determining whether a deprivation of a basic necessity is sufficiently serious to 5 satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, a court must consider the 6 circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivation. The more basic the need, the 7 shorter the time it can be withheld. See Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 8 2000). Substantial deprivations of shelter, food, drinking water or sanitation for four days, 9 for example, are sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth 10 Amendment claim. See id. at 732-733. 11 The allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. First of all, it 12 is unclear whether the deprivation of the alleged necessities, i.e., mattress, water, and 13 bathroom, was sufficiently serious to satisfy the first element for an Eighth Amendment 14 claim. For example, Plaintiff does not explain when and for how long he was deprived of 15 these necessities, e.g., whether it was for one night or for several days. The deprivation 16 must be substantial rather than incidental to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. 17 See, e.g., Johnson, 217 F.3d at 732-733. 18 Furthermore, there are no factual allegations describing the specific acts or conduct 19 of any specific state actor: “Sargeants” and “Lieutenants” generally is not sufficient. Nor 20 does Plaintiff allege that these prison officials possessed a sufficiently culpable state of 21 mind to satisfy the second element. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Neither negligence nor 22 gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-37 & 23 n.4; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (establishing that deliberate 24 indifference requires more than negligence). A prison official cannot be held liable under 25 the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless 26 the standard for criminal recklessness is met, i.e., the official knows of and disregards an 1 excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The official must 2 both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 3 serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. See id. 4 Plaintiff shall be granted one opportunity to file an amended complaint that states a 5 cognizable claim under § 1983. Plaintiff should keep the following principles in mind in 6 preparing an amended complaint. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant 7 under § 1983 only if Plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the 8 deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 9 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives 10 another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an 11 affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which 12 he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. 13 See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 14 Plaintiff is also advised that he must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a 15 claim in this Court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 16 Stat. 1321 (1996) (“PLRA”), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall 17 be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Case No. 25-cv-02422 BLF (PR) 11 DAVID ROB ERTS, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 12 Plaintiff, LEAVE TO AMEND 13 v.
14 SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, 15 Defendant. 16
17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against Salinas Valley State Prison, where he is currently confined. Dkt. No. 1.1 20 Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate 21 order. 22 23 DISCUSSION 24 I. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 5 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 7 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 8 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 9 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 II. Plaintiff’s Claims 11 Plaintiff alleges the following: “When I arrived here [SVSP] on the yard, 12 ‘Sargeants’ and ‘Lieutenants’ didn’t want to find me a cell, so they made me sleep in a 13 ‘ASU clinic’ with no mattress, water, bathroom….” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. He seeks damages. 14 Id. at 3. It appears that Plaintiff may not have exhausted administrative remedies before 15 filing this action. Id. at 1-2. 16 Liberally construed, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to state an Eighth 17 Amendment regarding conditions of confinement. The Constitution does not mandate 18 comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 19 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions 20 under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See 21 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). The Amendment imposes duties on prison 22 officials who must provide all prisoners with the basic necessities of life such as food, 23 clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 24 832; DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 25 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). 26 A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: 1 (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 2 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official 3 possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). 4 In determining whether a deprivation of a basic necessity is sufficiently serious to 5 satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, a court must consider the 6 circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivation. The more basic the need, the 7 shorter the time it can be withheld. See Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 8 2000). Substantial deprivations of shelter, food, drinking water or sanitation for four days, 9 for example, are sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth 10 Amendment claim. See id. at 732-733. 11 The allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. First of all, it 12 is unclear whether the deprivation of the alleged necessities, i.e., mattress, water, and 13 bathroom, was sufficiently serious to satisfy the first element for an Eighth Amendment 14 claim. For example, Plaintiff does not explain when and for how long he was deprived of 15 these necessities, e.g., whether it was for one night or for several days. The deprivation 16 must be substantial rather than incidental to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. 17 See, e.g., Johnson, 217 F.3d at 732-733. 18 Furthermore, there are no factual allegations describing the specific acts or conduct 19 of any specific state actor: “Sargeants” and “Lieutenants” generally is not sufficient. Nor 20 does Plaintiff allege that these prison officials possessed a sufficiently culpable state of 21 mind to satisfy the second element. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Neither negligence nor 22 gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-37 & 23 n.4; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (establishing that deliberate 24 indifference requires more than negligence). A prison official cannot be held liable under 25 the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless 26 the standard for criminal recklessness is met, i.e., the official knows of and disregards an 1 excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The official must 2 both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 3 serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. See id. 4 Plaintiff shall be granted one opportunity to file an amended complaint that states a 5 cognizable claim under § 1983. Plaintiff should keep the following principles in mind in 6 preparing an amended complaint. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant 7 under § 1983 only if Plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the 8 deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 9 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives 10 another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an 11 affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which 12 he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. 13 See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 14 Plaintiff is also advised that he must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a 15 claim in this Court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 16 Stat. 1321 (1996) (“PLRA”), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall 17 be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other 18 Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until 19 such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). An 20 action must be dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted available administrative remedies 21 before he filed suit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 22 Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) (where administrative remedies 23 not exhausted before prisoner sends complaint to court, action will be dismissed even if 24 exhaustion is completed by time complaint actually filed by clerk). 25 /// 26 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 3 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 4 || (28) days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using 5 || the court’s form complaint to correct the deficiencies described above. The amended 6 || complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, i.e., Case No. 7 || C 25-cv-02422 BLF (PR), and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 8 || Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. g || Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint supersedes the original, and Plaintiff may 10 || not make references to the original complaint. Claims not included in the amended 11 || complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no 2 longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). E 13 2. Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended S 14 || complaint or notice in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action with 3 15 || prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief without further notice to Plaintiff. 16 3. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of 5 17 this order to Plaintiff. 5 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: _ August 2025 founfnccwen BETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Dism. w/LTA P:\PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\02422Roberts_dwlta 26 27