1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEKOU KWANE THOMPSON, Case No. 23-cv-05079-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE 9 v.
10 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner currently housed at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a 14 pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court 15 for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 25 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 8 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 9 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 The complaint names as defendants California Department of Corrections and 12 Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) director Kathleen Allison; Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) 13 wardens Louis Martinez and Craig Koeing; CTF facility captains J. Ortega, and T. Mak; CTF 14 correctional counselors A. Esparaza and M. Creamer; and CTF classification staff representative 15 A. Hernandez. 16 The complaint makes the following allegations. On June 30, 2021, defendants Ortega and 17 Esparza conspired to refer Plaintiff to a classification staff representative for an adverse transfer to 18 a higher security level facility. On August 3, 2021, defendant Hernandez approved Plaintiff for 19 housing on CTF Level II. On September 20, 2021, defendants Mak and Creamer affirmed the 20 housing move. On October 4, 2021, a prison official moved into Plaintiff’s cell a known violent 21 level II inmate who had recently fought another cellmate. On October 24, 2021, Plaintiff’s 22 cellmate viciously attacked him. Plaintiff requests the following relief: $50,000 in compensatory 23 damages and $10,000 in punitive damages against each defendant; a declaratory judgment that the 24 acts and omissions described violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and an injunction ordering 25 defendants to stop practicing underground policies by inappropriately housing Level I inmates in 26 Level II facilities. 27 The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend for the following reasons. 1 Plaintiff has made no claims against them. If Plaintiff seeks to amend his claims against these 2 defendants, the Court advises as follows. Section 1983 liability may be imposed on a defendant 3 only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally 4 protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). There is no Section 1983 5 liability simply because an individual supervised the alleged wrongdoer. See Taylor v. List, 880 6 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (no respondent superior liability, or supervisory liability, under 7 Section 1983, i.e., no liability under theory that one is liable simply because he supervises person 8 who has violated plaintiff’s right). Similarly, conclusory allegations that a supervisor promulgated 9 unconstitutional policies and procedures which authorized their subordinates’ unconstitutional 10 conduct are speculative and do not suffice to state a claim of supervisory liability. Keates v. Koile, 11 883 F.3d 1228, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018). 12 Second, Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference 13 to inmate safety against defendants Ortega, Mak, Esparaza, Creamer, and Hernandez. The Eighth 14 Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of 15 prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The failure of prison officials to protect 16 inmates from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment when two 17 requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the 18 prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 19 U.S. at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows of and disregards an excessive 20 risk to inmate health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837. The 21 official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 22 risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw that inference. See id. at 837. Here, outside of 23 the general allegation that Level I inmates should not be housed in Level II housing, the complaint 24 does not explain how defendants Ortega, Mak, Esparaza, Creamer, and Hernandez knew that 25 housing Plaintiff in CTF’s Level II housing exposed Plaintiff to an excessive risk to his safety. 26 There is no allegation that any of these defendants knew that Plaintiff would be housed with an 27 inmate that had recently attacked his prior cellmate, or that any of these defendants were aware of 1 harm if housed in CTF’s Level II housing. 2 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to correct the above 3 deficiencies. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant 4 || leave to amend unless pleading could not possibly be cured by allegation of other facts).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEKOU KWANE THOMPSON, Case No. 23-cv-05079-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE 9 v.
10 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 11 Defendants.
12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner currently housed at Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a 14 pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court 15 for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 25 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 8 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 9 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 The complaint names as defendants California Department of Corrections and 12 Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) director Kathleen Allison; Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) 13 wardens Louis Martinez and Craig Koeing; CTF facility captains J. Ortega, and T. Mak; CTF 14 correctional counselors A. Esparaza and M. Creamer; and CTF classification staff representative 15 A. Hernandez. 16 The complaint makes the following allegations. On June 30, 2021, defendants Ortega and 17 Esparza conspired to refer Plaintiff to a classification staff representative for an adverse transfer to 18 a higher security level facility. On August 3, 2021, defendant Hernandez approved Plaintiff for 19 housing on CTF Level II. On September 20, 2021, defendants Mak and Creamer affirmed the 20 housing move. On October 4, 2021, a prison official moved into Plaintiff’s cell a known violent 21 level II inmate who had recently fought another cellmate. On October 24, 2021, Plaintiff’s 22 cellmate viciously attacked him. Plaintiff requests the following relief: $50,000 in compensatory 23 damages and $10,000 in punitive damages against each defendant; a declaratory judgment that the 24 acts and omissions described violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and an injunction ordering 25 defendants to stop practicing underground policies by inappropriately housing Level I inmates in 26 Level II facilities. 27 The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend for the following reasons. 1 Plaintiff has made no claims against them. If Plaintiff seeks to amend his claims against these 2 defendants, the Court advises as follows. Section 1983 liability may be imposed on a defendant 3 only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally 4 protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). There is no Section 1983 5 liability simply because an individual supervised the alleged wrongdoer. See Taylor v. List, 880 6 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (no respondent superior liability, or supervisory liability, under 7 Section 1983, i.e., no liability under theory that one is liable simply because he supervises person 8 who has violated plaintiff’s right). Similarly, conclusory allegations that a supervisor promulgated 9 unconstitutional policies and procedures which authorized their subordinates’ unconstitutional 10 conduct are speculative and do not suffice to state a claim of supervisory liability. Keates v. Koile, 11 883 F.3d 1228, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018). 12 Second, Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference 13 to inmate safety against defendants Ortega, Mak, Esparaza, Creamer, and Hernandez. The Eighth 14 Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of 15 prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The failure of prison officials to protect 16 inmates from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment when two 17 requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the 18 prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 19 U.S. at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows of and disregards an excessive 20 risk to inmate health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837. The 21 official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 22 risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw that inference. See id. at 837. Here, outside of 23 the general allegation that Level I inmates should not be housed in Level II housing, the complaint 24 does not explain how defendants Ortega, Mak, Esparaza, Creamer, and Hernandez knew that 25 housing Plaintiff in CTF’s Level II housing exposed Plaintiff to an excessive risk to his safety. 26 There is no allegation that any of these defendants knew that Plaintiff would be housed with an 27 inmate that had recently attacked his prior cellmate, or that any of these defendants were aware of 1 harm if housed in CTF’s Level II housing. 2 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to correct the above 3 deficiencies. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant 4 || leave to amend unless pleading could not possibly be cured by allegation of other facts). In 5 || preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should identify what each defendant did that violated 6 || his rights under the federal Constitution and federal law, and identify the federal constitutional 7 || provision or law violated. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. 10 || Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint 11 that addresses the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint must include the caption and 12 || civil case number used in this order, Case No. 23-05079 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED 5 13 COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the 14 || questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. An amended complaint completely 3 15 replaces the previous complaints. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2010). a 16 || Accordingly, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present 3 17 and all of the defendants he wishes to sue, and may not incorporate material from the prior 18 || complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the 19 time provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. The Clerk 20 || shall include two copies of the court’s complaint form with a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: 7/31/2024
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28