Reed v. Wong

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2011)

Download PDF
Reed v. Wong Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, and frequent litigant in federal court, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Robert K. Wong, former Warden of San Quentin State Prison ("SQSP"), "should have known" about how various SQSP correctional officers were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's safety while he was imprisoned at that facility. #1 at 3. Doc. v. ROBERT K. WONG, Defendant. / TYRONE L. REED, Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND No. C-10-3173 TEH (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, In this Order, Doc. #2, which will be granted in a separate order. the Court will conduct its initial review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. (2). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Id. at 1915A(b)(1), Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). II A complaint must set forth specific facts showing how each defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federallyprotected right. 1988.) See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. Further, a supervisor ­ such as former SQSP Warden Robert K. Wong, the Defendant named by Plaintiff in the instant action ­ may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only upon a showing of: (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation; or (2) a 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San A supervisor Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). therefore generally "is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them." Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). III The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Farmer v. In particular, prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1980). The failure of prison officials to protect prisoners from attacks by other prisoners or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to prisoner safety. 1040­41. // // // Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IV Here, Plaintiff's statement that former SQSP Warden Robert K. Wong "should have known" that SQSP correctional officers were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's safety is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Instead of an outright dismissal, Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this order to correct the pleading deficiencies, as set forth above, contained in the original complaint. V For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. The pleading must be simple, concise and direct and must state clearly and succinctly how Defendant Robert K. Wong is alleged to have violated Plaintiff's federally-protected rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended complaint within thirty (30) days of this order will result in the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and Defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint will not be considered by the Court. (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff further is advised that it is his responsibility See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk entitled "Notice of Change of Address," and must comply with the Failure to do so may result in Court's orders in a timely fashion. the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED 03/28/2011 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.10\Reed-10-3173-dwlta.wpd 5

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?