Rodriguez v. Isaac

Filing 16

ORDER Finding Cognizable Claim; ORDER for This Case to Proceed Against Defendant Isaac for Failure to Protect Plaintiff 15 ; ORDER Finding Second Amended Complaint Appropriate for Service and Forwarding Service Documents to Plaintiff for Completion and Return Within Thirty Days 15 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/17/15: Clerk to send plaintiff: (1) Summons, (1) USM-285 Form, and (1) Copy of the Second Amended Complaint 15 , filed on May 22, 2014. (Case Management Deadline: 4/20/2015) (Attachments: # 1 USM Instructions Packet)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:11-cv-01914-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIM

vs.

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED
AGAINST DEFENDANT ISAAC FOR
FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF
(Doc. 15.)

ISAAC,

15

Defendant.

ORDER FINDING SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE FOR
SERVICE AND FORWARDING SERVICE
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR
COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS
(Doc. 15.)

16
17
18
19

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Noel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights

23

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

24

November 17, 2011.

25

Complaint. (Doc. 6.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §

26

1915A and entered an order on May 8, 2014, dismissing the First Amended Complaint for

27

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 14.) On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed the

28

Second Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 15.)

(Doc. 1.)

On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended

1

1

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

2

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

3

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

4

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

5

legally Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

6

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

7

' 1915A(b)(1),(2). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

8

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or

9

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

10

A complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing

11

that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are

12

not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

13

conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

14

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955

15

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to indulge

16

unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

17

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual

18

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S.

19

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

20

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to

21

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969

22

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility

23

standard. Id.

24

III.

SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

25

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison (KVSP) in Calipatria,

26

California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

27

(CDCR). The events at issue in the Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at the

28

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) in Corcoran,
2

1

California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there.

2

Correctional Counselor Isaac (“Defendant”). Defendant was employed by the CDCR at SATF

3

at the time of the events at issue. Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow.

Plaintiff names as sole defendant

4

Plaintiff was a member of the South Side prison gang, which takes orders from the

5

Mexican Mafia prison gang. Plaintiff had problems with both of these gangs, resulting in

6

Plaintiff engaging in violence with three of his cell mates. Plaintiff was placed in solitary

7

confinement between 1998 and 2008 for attempted murder, attempted battery, and murder.

8

In March 2008, Plaintiff appeared before a classification committee and was informed

9

by counselor O’Baily [not a defendant] that the South Side prison gang wanted to kill Plaintiff,

10

and Plaintiff should be placed in protective custody. Plaintiff refused protective custody, and

11

the committee decided to retain Plaintiff in solitary confinement due to security concerns.

12

On August 6, 2008, defendant Isaac informed Plaintiff that she had become aware of

13

confidential information that the South Side gang wanted to kill Plaintiff, and Plaintiff should

14

be placed in protective custody.

15

informed Plaintiff that she would advise the classification committee to keep Plaintiff in

16

solitary confinement due to security concerns.

Plaintiff refused protective custody.

Defendant Isaac

17

The following day, the classification committee asked defendant Isaac if security

18

concerns existed. Defendant responded, “No.” (Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 15 at 6:9.)

19

The committee asked Plaintiff if any concerns existed. Plaintiff responded, “No.” (Id. at 6:11.)

20

The committee decided that since no security concerns existed, Plaintiff would be released to

21

the general population at SATF. On December 16, 2008, Plaintiff was released to the general

22

population.

23
24

Several months later, on June 1, 2009, the South Side gang identified Plaintiff as an
enemy and attempted to kill him.

25
26

On August 5, 2009, the classification committee determined that security concerns did
exist, and Plaintiff should never have been placed in the general population.

27
28

Plaintiff requests monetary damages.
///
3

1
2
3
4
5
6

IV.

PLAINTIFF=S EIGHTH AMENDMENT FAILURE TO PROTECT CLAIM
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress.

7

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal

8

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)

9

(internal quotations omitted).

10

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and

11

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

12

Cir. 2006). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must

13

provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.

14

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (internal citations and

15

quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates

16

from physical abuse. Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).

17

To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials

18

were Adeliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmates=s safety.@ Farmer, at 834. The

19

question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials, acting with deliberate

20

indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial >risk of serious damage to his

21

future health . . . .=@ Id. at 843 (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). The

22

Supreme Court has explained that Adeliberate indifference entails something more than mere

23

negligence ... [but] something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm

24

or with the knowledge that harm will result.@ Farmer at 835. The Court defined this Adeliberate

25

indifference@ standard as equal to Arecklessness,@ in which Aa person disregards a risk of harm

26

of which he is aware.@ Id. at 836-37.

27

The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong.

28

First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, Asufficiently serious.@ Id. at 834.
4

1

Second, subjectively, the prison official must Aknow of and disregard an excessive risk to

2

inmate health or safety.@ Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir.

3

1995). To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner may rely on circumstantial

4

evidence; in fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to establish knowledge.

5

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995).
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth

6
7

Amendment claim against defendant Isaac for failure to protect him.

8

V.

CONCLUSION

9

The Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against defendant Isaac for

10

failure to protect him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be

11

allowed to proceed with the Second Amended Complaint filed on May 22, 2014, on the claim

12

found cognizable by the Court. The Clerk shall be directed to forward to Plaintiff documents

13

for initiation of service of process.

14

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, on Plaintiff=s

16

Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Isaac (Correctional Counselor) for

17

failure to protect him;

18

2.

Service is appropriate for the following defendant:

19

CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR ISAAC

20

3.

The Clerk shall send Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 form, one (1) summons, a

21

Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of

22

the Second Amended Complaint filed on May 22, 2014 (Doc. 15);

23

4.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the

24

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice

25

to the Court with the following documents:

26

a.

Completed summons;

27

b.

Completed USM-285 form for defendant Isaac; and

28

///
5

1

c.

2
3

Two (2) copies of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint filed on
May 22, 2014;

5.

Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of

4

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct

5

the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendant pursuant to

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

7

6.

The failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 17, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
6