Lopez v. Warden, San Quentin Prison et al

Filing 6

ORDER of Dismissal With Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 10/10/2019. The clerk hereby certifies that on 10/10/2019 a copy of this Order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the docket. (rmilc1s, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

GUSTAVO COLIN LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 19-cv-04108-RMI
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN PRISON, et
al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Defendants.
13
14

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and has consented to the jurisdiction

16

of a Magistrate Judge (dkt. 5).
DISCUSSION

17
18

Standard of Review

19

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

20

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

21

1915A(a). In the course of this review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

22

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

23

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2).

24

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,

25

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

27

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the

28

statement should impart fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.

1

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). While it is true that a complaint “does not need

2

detailed factual allegations . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment]

3

to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4

cause of action will not do . . . [the] [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

5

above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

6

omitted). A complaint must therefore proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

7

plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly has been

8

explained as such: “[w]hile legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must

9

be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)

13

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and, (2) that the

14

alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

15

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

Legal Claims

17

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate.

18

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

19

guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In particular,

20

prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Id.

21

at 833; Cortez v. Skol, 776 F. 3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036,

22

1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by other

23

inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment when two

24

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the

25

prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S.

26

at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if she or he knows of and disregards an

27

excessive risk to inmate health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837.

28

“In a § 1983 or a Bivens action – where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants
2

1

– the term ‘supervisory liability’ is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, each Government

2

official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.” Iqbal, 556

3

U.S. at 677 (finding under Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544, and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure, that complainant-detainee in a Bivens action failed to plead sufficient facts “plausibly

5

showing” that top federal officials “purposely adopted a policy of classifying post-September-11

6

detainees as ‘of high interest’ because of their race, religion, or national origin” over more likely

7

and non-discriminatory explanations).

8

A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal

9

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the
supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). Even if a supervisory official is not directly involved in the allegedly

12

unconstitutional conduct, “[a] supervisor can be liable in this individual capacity for his own

13

culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates; for his

14

acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation; or for conduct that showed a reckless or callous

15

indifference to the rights of others.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation

16

omitted). The claim that a supervisory official “knew of unconstitutional conditions and ‘culpable

17

actions of his subordinates’ but failed to act amounts to ‘acquiescence in the unconstitutional

18

conduct of his subordinates’ and is ‘sufficient to state a claim of supervisory liability.’” Keates v.

19

Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208) (finding that

20

conclusory allegations that supervisor promulgated unconstitutional policies and procedures which

21

authorized unconstitutional conduct of subordinates do not suffice to state a claim of supervisory

22

liability).

23

Plaintiff argues that he was mistakenly released from federal custody and transferred to

24

San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) while he awaited deportation by federal authorities. Compl.

25

(dkt. 1) at 3. At SQSP Plaintiff was walking to his housing unit when a riot broke out on the yard,

26

during which he was assaulted by an unknown individual. Id. Plaintiff states he was rendered

27

unconscious and suffered serious injuries, and that while he was recovering from his injuries he

28

was deported to Mexico. Id. While it is unclear, it appears that this incident may have occurred
3

1

sometime between 2013 and 2015. See id. at 9, 11.
Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend such that Plaintiff can

2
3

provide more information. The only Defendants are the Warden of SQSP, the Sheriff of Santa

4

Clara County, and the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, plaintiff fails

5

to describe the actions of any particular Defendant, or any individual. To state an Eighth

6

Amendment violation, Plaintiff must identify specific defendants, and then describe how they

7

were deliberately indifferent to his safety. Simply stating that there was a riot and plaintiff was

8

injured is insufficient. Plaintiff must present allegations that Defendants knew of and disregarded

9

a risk to his safety and failed to take reasonable steps to protect him. That some of these
Defendants are supervisors is insufficient. Plaintiff must describe either personal involvement in

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the constitutional deprivation or a sufficient causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful

12

conduct and the constitutional violation. Plaintiff must provide more information with respect to

13

the legal standard set forth above.
CONCLUSION

14

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards

15
16

set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date

17

this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

18

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

19

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See

20

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material

21

from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result

22

in the dismissal of this case.
2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

23
24

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

25

Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so

26

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

27

Procedure 41(b).

28

//
4

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 10, 2019

3
4
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5