Jackson v. Foster et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/20/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. 16 ) is DISMISSED; and this case is closed. CASE CLOSED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES A. JACKSON, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2145 CKD P

v.

ORDER

JOHN FOSTER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented

18

to have all matters in this action before a Untied State Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

19

On April 12, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint as the court is required to do

20

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave to file a

21

second amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint.

22

Again, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

23

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

24

1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims

25

that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

26

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

28

/////
1

1

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that

2

are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

3

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

4

1915A(b)(1),(2).

5

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

6

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

7

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

8

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

9

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

10

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

11

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

12

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than

13

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause

14

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,

15

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

16

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim

17

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A

18

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

19

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.

20

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

21

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007),

22

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

23

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

24
25
26
27
28

With respect to plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court found as follows:
As in his original complaint, plaintiff alleges he hurt his hand while
conducting maintenance on a washing machine at his prison.
Plaintiff alleges his injury was caused when a computer “glitch”
caused the machine to start unexpectedly.
He claims certain
defendants caused his injury by not having the washing machine in
question repaired.
2

1

As with his original complaint, plaintiff still fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted for cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment because he fails to plead facts
suggesting any defendant subjected plaintiff to a substantial risk of
serious harm by being at least deliberately indifferent to that risk.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). At best, plaintiff
alleges he was subjected to negligence in violation of California tort
law. Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff one more
opportunity to state a claim upon which plaintiff can proceed in this
court.1

2
3
4
5
6

Plaintiff’s allegations in his second amended complaint are essentially the same as those

7
8

in the first. Plaintiff alleges that on May 6, 2015, he worked in the laundry at California State

9

Prison, Sacramento operating large washing machines. At some point that day, plaintiff was

10

conducting maintenance on one of the machines. One of his hands became caught within gears

11

and a rotating belt when the machine started unexpectedly due to what plaintiff terms a “computer

12

glitch.” Plaintiff blames his injuries on defendants alleging that they knew the machine in

13

question had suffered from computer glitches in the past.
There are two glaring omissions from plaintiff’s allegations. First, while plaintiff alleges

14
15

defendants were aware the washing machine in question suffered from computer “glitches,” he

16

does not allege that defendants were aware these “glitches” would cause the machine to start

17

moving unexpectedly. Also, plaintiff fails to explain why he did not shut off power to the

18

washing machine before conducting maintenance thereby eliminating any possibility that the

19

washing machine would engage (or that plaintiff would get electrocuted) while he was conducting

20

maintenance in a compromised position. While the court expresses no opinion as to whether

21

these omissions preclude an actionable claim for negligence under California law, they do

22

preclude a claim for cruel and unusual punishment in violation under the Eighth Amendment

23

because the allegations simply do not demonstrate plaintiff’s injury was the result of any risk of

24

serious harm clear to anybody but plaintiff or those working with plaintiff at the time he was

25

injured (none of whom are named as defendants here). It is also worth mentioning that plaintiff

26
27
28

1

If the only actionable claim plaintiff has is for negligence in violation of California law,
plaintiff must proceed in a California court as this court would lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §
1330 et seq.
3

1

himself was aware that the washing machine in question had experienced computer glitches as

2

plaintiff alleges he informed certain defendants that was the case. This means plaintiff was aware

3

of the risks associated with working on the machine in question with the power on and they were

4

not great, or they were great but plaintiff’s injuries were the result of a poor decision made by

5

plaintiff to leave the power on. Either way, there is no basis to deem plaintiff’s injuries the result

6

of defendants’ knowingly subjecting plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious physical harm.

7
8
9

For these reasons, plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be dismissed. Leave to
amend will not be granted a third time as that appears futile.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 16) is dismissed; and

11

2. This case is closed.

12

Dated: May 20, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18

1
jack2145.dis(2)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4