Johnson v. Sierra Conservation Center, et al
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/15/2015 DISMISSING this action for plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.(Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT AUSTIN JOHNSON,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. 2:13-cv-0706-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER, et al.
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
19
636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. The court issued an order to
20
show cause requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure
21
to state a claim. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s response to the court’s order.
22
In the order to show cause, the court discussed the claims raised in plaintiff’s
23
complaint, and found they failed to state a claim based on the allegations that the defendants
24
failed to protect plaintiff from the possibility of harm. The claim, a violation of plaintiff’s Eighth
25
Amendment rights, was based on the defendants’ decision to transfer plaintiff to the same facility
26
as another inmate with whom plaintiff had an altercation with, thus placing him in danger. The
1
1
court explained that:
2
prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect
inmates from physical abuse. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,
1250-51 (9th Cir. 1982); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. Liability exists
only when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the prisoner
was incarcerated under conditions presenting a substantial risk of
serious harm; and (2) subjectively, prison officials knew of and
disregarded the risk. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The very
obviousness of the risk may suffice to establish the knowledge
element. See Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.
1995). Prison officials are not liable, however, if evidence is
presented that they lacked knowledge of a safety risk. See Farmer,
511 U.S. at 844. The knowledge element does not require that the
plaintiff prove that prison officials know for a certainty that the
inmate’s safety is in danger, but it requires proof of more than a
mere suspicion of danger. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457,
459 (9th Cir. 1986). Finally, the plaintiff must show that prison
officials disregarded a risk. Thus, where prison officials actually
knew of a substantial risk, they are not liable if they took
reasonable steps to respond to the risk, even if harm ultimately was
not averted. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.
(Order, Doc. 13, at 3).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
In his response to the order to show cause, plaintiff explains that he and inmate
14
Turcot were in fact transferred to the same facility. However, he makes it clear they were
15
assigned to different yards, and the only possible contact between the two were during medical
16
clinic trips. This is not a case where the defendants intentionally housed two known enemies in
17
the same cell, much less same yard where they would be in direct contact on a regular basis.
18
While there is some remote risk that the two could come in contact with each other during a
19
medical visit, the possibility of an attack during such contact is remote. Plaintiff’s claims of risk
20
are simply too tenuous to be sufficient to state a claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment
21
rights.
22
Plaintiff was informed as to the defects in his complaint, and he was provided an
23
opportunity to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
24
Plaintiff’s response thereto clarifies that the defects in his claims are not curable and his
25
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
26
///
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
3
4
This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; and
2.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
5
6
7
8
DATED: May 15, 2015
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?