Griffiths v. Tolson et al
Filing
22
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of Certain Claims and Defendants signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 06/23/2017. Referred to Judge O'Neill.(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVEN GRIFFITHS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
R. TOLSON, et al.,
15
Case No. 1:15-cv-01226-LJO-BAM (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF Nos. 19, 20)
Defendants.
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
16
Findings and Recommendations Following Screening
17
18
I.
Background
19
Plaintiff Steven Griffiths (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
20
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on
21
August 10, 2015. (ECF No. 1.)
On May 25, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint under 28
22
23
U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it stated cognizable claims for failure to protect in violation of the
24
Eighth Amendment against Defendant Ramirez, but failed to state a cognizable claim against any
25
other defendants. The Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a third amended
26
complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claims. (ECF
27
No. 20.)
28
///
1
1
On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his
2
cognizable claims. (ECF No. 21.) Accordingly, the Court issues the following Findings and
3
Recommendations.
4
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
5
governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
6
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous
7
or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
8
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C.
9
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
10
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
11
pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
12
required, but “[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 (2009) (citing Bell
14
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken
15
as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores,
16
Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
17
To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
18
sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
19
for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S.
20
Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
21
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the
22
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
23
II.
24
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The events in the
25
complaint are alleged to have occurred at Kern Valley State Prison and California Substance
26
Abuse Treatment facility and State Prison (CSTAF/SP). Plaintiff names the following
27
defendants: (1) Acting Chief Deputy Warden R. Tolson; and (2) Acting Captain, K. Ramirez.
28
///
2
1
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
2
On July 31, 2013, Plaintiff was seen by the classification committee to determine
3
Plaintiff’s safety issues. The warden had granted/modified an appeal and directed staff to
4
convene a committee hearing to determine Plaintiff’s single cell needs. Defendants were
5
committee members. Defendant K. Ramirez had interviewed Plaintiff before the committee
6
meeting, on four occasions, concerning the history of in cell assaults. Plaintiff provided the
7
names of four cellmates who had previously assaulted Plaintiff in his cell and gave Defendant
8
Ramirez the injury reports from the assaults. Plaintiff provided Defendant Ramirez
9
documentation from other inmates about intolerable conditions within Plaintiff’s cell due to
10
Plaintiff’s colostomy and urinary catheterizations. (ECF No. 19, p. 4.) The committee
11
incorrectly and falsely stated that in cell assaults has not occurred and continued to double cell
12
Plaintiff. Plaintiff was subjected to further in cell abuse and injury from inmates who were forced
13
into Plaintiff’s cell.
14
III.
15
Discussion
A. Rule 8
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain
16
17
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
18
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
19
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
20
(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
21
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
22
at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also
23
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is short, but fails to set forth the necessary facts to state a
24
25
claim that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff fails to link Defendant Tolson to any conduct other
26
than granting the appeal and participating in the committee.
27
///
28
///
3
1
B. Supervisory Liability and Linkage
2
As a threshold issue, under § 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the
3
participation in the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609
4
F.3d 1011, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir.
5
2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
6
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
7
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.
8
9
10
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between
11
the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See
12
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The
13
Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional
14
right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
15
affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
16
deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
17
Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat
18
superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235, and administrators may only be held
19
liable if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act
20
to prevent them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652
21
F.3d 1202, 1205–08 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009);
22
Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); Harris v.
23
Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997). Some culpable action or inaction must be
24
attributable to defendants and while the creation or enforcement of, or acquiescence in, an
25
unconstitutional policy may support a claim, the policy must have been the moving force behind
26
the violation. Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205; Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 914–15 (9th Cir. 2001);
27
Redman v. Cty. of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446–47 (9th Cir. 1991); Hansen v. Black, 885
28
F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989).
4
1
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts linking Defendant Tolson to acts or omissions showing
2
that the defendant participated in or directed the violation of any of his constitutional rights, or
3
that this defendant knew of the violations and failed to prevent them. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677;
4
Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to hold any defendant liable based
5
solely on a position of authority, he cannot do so.
6
7
C. Deliberate Indifference
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege an Eighth Amendment claim, the Eighth
8
Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from inhumane
9
conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2005). Prison
10
officials must provide prisoners with medical care and personal safety and must take reasonable
11
measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–33
12
(1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth
13
Amendment to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners because being
14
violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their
15
offenses against society. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833–34 (quotation marks omitted); Clem v. Lomeli,
16
566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2009); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005).
17
However, prison officials are liable under the Eighth Amendment only if they demonstrate
18
deliberate indifference to conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate; and it
19
is well settled that deliberate indifference occurs when an official acted or failed to act despite his
20
knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 841 (quotations
21
omitted); Clem, 566 F.3d at 1181; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. Where the failure to protect is
22
alleged, the defendant must knowingly fail to protect plaintiff from a serious risk of conditions of
23
confinement where defendant had reasonable opportunity to intervene. Orwat v. Maloney, 360
24
F.Supp.2d 146, 155 (D. Mass. 2005), citing Gaudreault v. Municipality of Salem, 923 F.2d 203,
25
207 n.3 (1st Cir. 1991); see also Borello v. Allison, 446 F.3d 742, 749 (7th Cir. 2006)
26
(defendant’s deliberate indifference must effectively condone the attack by allowing it to happen);
27
accord, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833–34 (if deliberate indifference by prison officials effectively
28
condones the attack by allowing it to happen, those officials can be held liable to the injured
5
1
victim). “Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question
2
of fact subject to demonstrating in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial
3
evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the
4
very fact that the risk was obvious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842.
5
Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant Ramirez. Plaintiff told Ramirez of
6
prior assaults from cellmates because of Plaintiff’s medical condition, and presented other
7
documentation of the assaults to Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ramirez knew that
8
Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of harm, yet Defendant Ramirez assigned Plaintiff to be double
9
celled and Plaintiff was again assaulted. However, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient factual
10
detail to state a claim for the deliberate indifference against Acting Chief Deputy Warden Tolson.
11
IV.
Conclusion and Recommendation
12
Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Ramirez for failure to protect in
13
violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court therefore recommends that Plaintiff’s remaining
14
claims and Defendant Tolson be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff was provided with an
15
opportunity to file a third amended complaint, but opted to proceed on the cognizable claims. As
16
such, the Court does not recommend granting further leave to amend.
17
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows:
18
1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on January 5,
19
2017, against Defendant Ramirez for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth
20
Amendment;
21
2. Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed from this action; and
22
3. Defendant Tolson be dismissed from this action.
23
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
24
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
25
fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
26
file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
27
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
28
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the
6
1
magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.
2
2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
June 23, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?