Brewer v. Bravo
Filing
6
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/8/2013. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 1983 Amended Complaint Form)(Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
CURTIS BREWER,
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
R. BRAVO,
13
Defendant.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:12-cv-01025-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
15
16
I.
Screening Requirement and Standard
17
Plaintiff Curtis Brewer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on
19
June 25, 2012, is currently before the Court for screening.
20
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
21
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
22
1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
23
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
24
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28
25
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
26
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
27
pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
28
required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
1
1
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
2
1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
3
(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge
4
unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
5
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
6
To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
7
sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
8
for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted);
9
Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility
10
that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
11
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks
12
omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
13
II.
14
Plaintiff is currently housed at the Lancaster State Prison. The events complained about
15
16
Plaintiff’s Allegations
allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison.
Plaintiff alleges as follows: “On July 18, 2010, c/o R. Bravo allowed I/M’s Smith
17
#F24249 and Board #F16687 out of their cell to assault me, while on lockdown performing my
18
then Men’s Advisory Counsel [sic] Representative (“MAC-REP”) building functions, while a
19
substantial risk of serious harm existed, with this knowledge thereof and I was injured in the
20
attack.” (ECF No. 1, p. 3.)
21
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
22
III.
23
Due to its abbreviated and conclusory nature, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with
Deficiencies of the Complaint
24
leave to amend. To assist Plaintiff in amending his complaint, Plaintiff is provided with the
25
applicable pleading and legal standards.
26
27
28
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
2
1
As noted above, detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
2
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,
3
556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
4
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
5
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are
6
not. Id; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
7
Plaintiff’s complaint is conclusory and lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a
8
cognizable claim. Although Rule 8 demands a short and plain statement, Plaintiff’s complaint
9
must include enough facts to support a claim.
10
11
B. Failure to Protect
Plaintiff appears to allege a claim against Correctional Officer Bravo for failure to protect
12
him from an assault by other inmates. Prison officials are required “to take reasonable steps to
13
protect inmates from physical abuse.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982)
14
(abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. O’Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995)). To
15
state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with
16
deliberate indifference. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations
17
omitted). Deliberate indifference requires a showing that “prison officials were aware of a
18
“substantial risk of serious harm” to an inmate’s health or safety and that there was no
19
“reasonable justification for the deprivation, in spite of that risk.” Id. (quoting Farmer v.
20
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979, 1982 (1994)). Additionally, an officer
21
can only be held liable for failing to intercede if he had a realistic opportunity to intercede and
22
failed to do so. Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 2000).
23
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Bravo is based on conclusory statements.
24
Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendant Bravo was aware that
25
Plaintiff was at a substantial risk of serious harm from an assault by other inmates or that he had
26
realistic opportunity to intercede. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a cognizable claim for failure
27
to protect. As discussed below, Plaintiff will be given leave to cure this deficiency.
28
3
1
IV.
2
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted
Conclusion and Order
3
under section 1983. However, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an
4
amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
5
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what
6
each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal
7
rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff also must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state
8
a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff
9
should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of
10
11
adding new, unrelated claims.
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to Local Rule 220, the amended complaint must
12
be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.
13
Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the
14
case. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,”
15
refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
16
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
17
1.
The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;
18
2.
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to file a
19
20
21
first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and
3.
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action
for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.
22
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
October 8, 2013
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?