Hill v. Cates et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING 12 Compalint (Strike), Without Leave to Amend, for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/24/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONNELL HILL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. CATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01074-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT,
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM
[ECF No. 12]

17

Plaintiff Ronnell Hill is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of

19

the United States Magistrate Judge on July 13, 2011. Local Rule 302.
On August 23, 2013, Plaintiff’s initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure

20
21

to state a cognizable claim.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on September 25,

22
23

2013.

24

I.

25

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

26

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

27

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

28
1

1

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

2

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]

3

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

4

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

5

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

6

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

7

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

8

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally

9

participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.

10

2002).

11

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally

12

construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121

13

(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible,

14

which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named

15

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,

16

572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not

17

sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying

18

the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

19

II.

20

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

21

Plaintiff was a participant in the prison mental health delivery program. Prison officials forced

22

Plaintiff to have a cellmate. Plaintiff warned prison officials of the security concerns he faced by

23

being placed with a cellmate, but prison officials ignored him. On January 25, 2010, Plaintiff’s

24

cellmate seriously injured him with a weapon. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were aware that the

25

prison practices and policies increase the likelihood of cell assaults and fatalities. After Plaintiff’s

26

cellmate injured him, prison officials fabricated false incident reports subjecting him to a Security

27

Housing Unit (SHU) term. Plaintiff alleges that the false reports were a cover-up to protect prison

28

officials for ignoring his safety concerns.
2

1

As a result of these reports, Plaintiff was found guilty of attempted murder, even though it was

2

in fact Plaintiff’s cellmate who acted as the aggressor. Plaintiff alleges that there was no more

3

evidence against him than existed against his cellmate. Following this incident, Plaintiff filed an

4

administrative appeal against the fabricated incident reports.

5

“authorized the victimization” of Plaintiff by signing off on various stages of review of his appeal.

6

IV.

7

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

DISCUSSION

8

A.

Supervisory Liability

9

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the

10

violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77, 129 S. Ct. at 1948-49; Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz.,

11

609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir.

12

2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed on

13

supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77, 129 S. Ct. at

14

1948-49; Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1020-21; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934, and as

15

administrators, Defendants may only be held liable if they “participated in or directed the violations,

16

or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

17

Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101

18

(2012); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd.

19

of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).

20

Some culpable action or inaction must be attributable to Defendants and while the creation or

21

enforcement of, or acquiescence in, an unconstitutional policy, may support a claim, the policy must

22

have been the moving force behind the violation. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205; Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d

23

895, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2001); Redman v. Cnty. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1991);

24

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989).

25

Here, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendants for supervisory liability. It appears

26

that Defendants were not present or directly involved in Plaintiff’s assault in any way. Plaintiff’s

27

complaint generally alleges that Defendants were aware of policies that led to his assault, however

28

///
3

1

fails to state with any specificity what policies he references or how they led to his assault.

2

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for supervisory liability.

3

B.

Eighth Amendment—Failure to Protect Claim

4

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from

5

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006).

6

Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with

7

food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

8

825, 832-33, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have a

9

duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833; Hearns

10

v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect inmates

11

from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation where prison

12

officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer, 511

13

U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040.

14

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim against any

15

Defendants for the failure to protect him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s general

16

statement that he expressed security concerns prior to the assault by his cellmate is insufficient to state

17

a claim. Plaintiff’s allegations lack sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that

18

each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Accordingly,

19

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment.

20

C.

Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process

21

The Due Process Clause protects Plaintiff against the deprivation of liberty without the

22

procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221,

23

125 S. Ct. 2384 (2005). To state a claim, Plaintiff must first identify the interest at stake. Id. Liberty

24

interests may arise from the Due Process Clause itself or from state law. Id. The Due Process Clause

25

does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in avoiding more adverse conditions of confinement, and

26

under state law, the existence of a liberty interest created by prison regulations is determined by

27

focusing on the nature of the condition of confinement at issue. Id. at 221-23 (citing Sandin v.

28

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995)) (quotation marks omitted). Liberty interests
4

1

created by prison regulations are generally limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical

2

and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Id. at

3

221(citing Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484) (quotation marks omitted); Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 716, 718

4

(9th Cir. 2007).

5

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim against any named defendants for violations of

6

his due process rights. Plaintiff makes conclusory statements that Defendants violated his due process

7

rights. However, Plaintiff does not allege a deprivation of liberty nor does he allege that he was

8

denied due process in any procedures against him. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants falsified

9

incident reports are not sufficient to state a due process claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations fail

10

to state a claim against Defendants for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

11

Amendment.

12

V.

13

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

14
15

granted. In light of the fact that the Court previously notified Plaintiff of the deficiencies and granted

16

leave to amend, further amendment is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.

17

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

18

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed September 25, 2013, is dismissed for failure to
state a claim;

20
2.

21
22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

The instant action is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim; and

///
5

1

3.

This dismissal is subject to the Athree-strikes@ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. '
1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).

2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 24, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6