Grimes v. Biter, et al.

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/13/2014. CASE CLOSED.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

JOSEPH GRIMES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
BITER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv00393 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

16

Plaintiff Joseph Grimes (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 18, 2013.1 Pursuant to Court order, Plaintiff filed

19

a First Amended Complaint on December 2, 2013. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint

20

(“SAC”) on March 13, 2014. He names Physical Therapist John Doe and Correctional Officer

21
22

John Does 1-10 as Defendants.
A.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

23

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
24
25
26

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

27
28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on June 3, 2013.
1

1
2
3
4
5

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.

6
7
8
9

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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). Detailed factual allegations are not

10

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

11

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

12

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

13

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting

14

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are

15

not. Id.

16
17
18
19

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or
other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d
1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006);
Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the

20
21
22
23

actions or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat
superior liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County,
Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235

24

(9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to

25

state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572

26

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this

27

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

28
2

1
2
3
4

B.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, California.

The events at issue occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison.
Plaintiff is a Protective Custody Inmate. He alleges that on December 20, 2010, he was

5

receiving physical therapy in the physical therapy office. Plaintiff alleges that Correctional
6
7
8
9
10

Officer John Doe 1 was supposed to be at a post at the physical therapy office door while
Plaintiff received physical therapy. He alleges that John Doe 1 was assigned to watch Plaintiff
because he was a Protective Custody Inmate.
Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked by a “keep away inmate.” ECF No. 17, at 3.

11

Plaintiff contends that Correctional Officers Does 1 through 10 violated policy by uncuffing a

12

general population inmate and letting him out of a secure cage to attack Plaintiff. Plaintiff was

13

attacked with an inmate-manufactured weapon.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Defendants took Plaintiff to a doctor for treatment, which involved butterfly bandages
and a tetanus shot. As a result of the attack, Plaintiff has a scar on his face.
Plaintiff alleges that Physical Therapist John Doe and Correctional Officer Does 1
through 10 failed to prevent Plaintiff from being attacked as required by applicable regulations.
He believes that Defendants “were malicious, fraudulent and oppressive with the cruel intention
of injuring Plaintiff.” ECF No. 17, at 3.

20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants failed to follow procedure requiring that they
take pictures of the weapon and injuries and write an incident report. He believes that
Defendants attempted to cover up the incident.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect him, in violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments.

26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4

C.

ANALYSIS
1.

Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and
from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.

5

2006). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide
6
7
8
9

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison
officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer,

10

511 U.S. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison

11

officials to protect inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth

12

Amendment violation where prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious

13

harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040.

14

In his complaint, Plaintiff contends that Physical Therapist Doe and Correctional Officers

15

Does 1 through 10 failed to protect him from attack by the general population inmate. He alleges

16
17
18

that a Correctional Officer left his post, and either this Correctional Officer or another uncuffed a
general population inmate and let him out of a secure cage. Based on these facts, Plaintiff
contends that Defendants failed to protect him from injury and attempted to cover up the

19

incident.
20
21
22
23

In the prior screening order, the Court explained that Plaintiff failed to allege that
Defendants acted with the requisite intent. He has failed to correct the deficiency in his SAC. A
prison official’s actions, or inactions, rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation only

24

where the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff.

25

Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a finding that any Defendants knew that an attack would

26

result and disregarded the risk of harm.

27
28
4

1
2
3

For example, Plaintiff alleges that Correctional Officer Doe 1 left his post, but is unclear
if Doe 1 even had anything to do with the general population inmate. Leaving a post, without
more, is insufficient to impose liability.

4

Moreover, while Plaintiff names the physical therapist as a Defendant, there are no facts

5

to support a finding that he contributed in any way to the alleged incident. According to
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff, Physical Therapist Doe was simply providing Plaintiff with physical therapy at the time
of the attack and had nothing to do with the manner in which the general population inmate was
handled.
Although Plaintiff states that Defendants had a “cruel intention of injuring” him, his

10
11

conclusory allegations, without factual support, are insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

12

at 1949.

13

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendant. Plaintiff was

14

given an opportunity to correct these deficiencies but has not provided the Court with any

15

additional factual allegations.

16

2.

17
18

Fourteenth Amendment

Although Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on
Defendants’ alleged failure to protect him from the attack, his claim is properly analyzed under

19

the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff presents no facts to support a separate theory of liability under
20
21
22
23

the Fourteenth Amendment.
D.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

24

1983. In the prior screening order, the Court permitted an opportunity to amend. However,

25

Plaintiff’s SAC provides little, if any, additional factual allegations. The Court therefore finds

26

that further leave to amend is not warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir.

27

2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

28
5

1
2
3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s SAC is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for
failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
This terminates this action in its entirety.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 13, 2014

L. Beck

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