Stewart, Sr. v. Harrington et al

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/6/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JERMAINE STEWART, JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED K. HARRINGTON, et al., 14 Case No. 1:12-cv-02032-DLB PC Defendants. ECF No. 1 15 16 I. Background 17 Plaintiff Jermaine Stewart, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 14, 2012, Plaintiff 20 filed his complaint. ECF No. 1. 21 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 26 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 27 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 28 claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 1 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 1 2 is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 3 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 4 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 5 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual 7 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. 8 II. Summary of Complaint Plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, California, where 9 10 the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants: warden K. Harrington, 11 and correctional officers Herrera, Perez, and Buyard. 12 Plaintiff alleges the following. On September 14, 2011, at 7:30 a.m., Plaintiff was walking 13 back to his cell from breakfast when he slipped and fell on some water. Plaintiff hurt his back and 14 his head. Defendant Herrera was working the tower control that day. Defendant Perez was the 15 officer who assisted Plaintiff until a medical technical assistant came. Defendant Buyard took 16 Plaintiff to the medical ward for examination and x-rays. 17 18 19 Plaintiff requests unspecified relief. III. Analysis It is unclear what constitutional or federal violation allegedly occurred. The Court will 20 construe Plaintiff’s claim as one for violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment’s 21 prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners not only from inhumane 22 methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of confinement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 23 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Although prison conditions 24 may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, 25 sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347. To prevail on a claim that a 26 prisoner’s Eighth Amendment right to humane conditions of confinement were violated, the prisoner 27 must prove that the prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s safety, 28 which was presented by the conditions of his confinement. Robinson v. Prunty, 249 F.3d 862, 866 2 1 (9th Cir. 2001). A claim challenging a prisoner’s condition of confinement is analyzed under the 2 deliberate indifference standard. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34. 3 A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met. 4 First, the deprivation must be, objectively, sufficiently serious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34. In 5 determining whether a deprivation is sufficiently serious to satisfy the first component of the 6 deliberate indifference standard, a court must consider the circumstances, nature, and duration of the 7 deprivation. Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979). The more basic the need, the 8 shorter the time it may be withheld. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). 9 Second, the prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” that is, one of 10 deliberate indifference to the inmate’s health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison official 11 may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment only if he knows the inmate faces a substantial risk 12 of serious harm and the official disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. 13 Id. at 847. “[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” 14 but does not require a “purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Id. at 835. 15 Liability requires a showing that “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate 16 health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn 17 that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. 18 Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendants. Plaintiff alleges no facts which 19 indicate that Defendants Harrington or Herrera took any action that deprived Plaintiff of his 20 constitutional or federal rights. Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Perez and Buyard indicate 21 that they actually assisted Plaintiff after he fell. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts which indicate that 22 any Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional or federal rights. See Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 23 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (“A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, 24 within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative 25 acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of 26 which complaint is made.”). 27 IV. 28 Conclusion and Order Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendants. Plaintiff cannot amend his pleadings to 3 1 cure the deficiencies identified. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 2 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice for 3 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close 4 this action. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: /s/ Dennis June 6, 2013 L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 3b142a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?