Reed v. Wong

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/18/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 No. C-11-1720 TEH (PR) TYRONE L. REED, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ROBERT K. WONG, Warden, 15 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendant. 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Kern 19 Valley State Prison in Delano, California, and frequent litigant in 20 federal court, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint under 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983 against Robert K. Wong, former Warden of San Quentin 22 State Prison (“SQSP”). 23 implication that SQSP officials were deliberately indifferent to his 24 safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 25 also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. ## 2 & 8, which 26 will be granted in a separate order. 27 conduct its initial review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 1915A. Doc. #1. Plaintiff appears to allege by See id. Plaintiff In this Order, the Court will 1 I 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 3 cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or 4 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 5 In its review the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 6 dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from 8 a defendant who is immune from such relief. 9 (2). 10 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Id. at 1915A(b)(1), To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 11 allege that a person acting under the color of state law committed a 12 violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the 13 United States. 14 Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 15 construed. 16 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 17 1990). West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 18 19 II 20 A 21 The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take 22 reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners. 23 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). 24 have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other 25 prisoners. 26 Cir. 2005); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982); In particular, prison officials Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th 27 28 Farmer v. 2 1 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 The failure of prison officials to protect prisoners from attacks by 3 other prisoners or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates 4 the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: 5 deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) 6 the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to 7 prisoner safety. 8 1040–41. (1) the Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 9 10 B 11 A complaint must set forth specific facts showing how each 12 defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally- 13 protected right. 14 1988.) 15 Wong, the Defendant named by Plaintiff in the instant action – may 16 be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only upon a showing of: 17 personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation; or (2) a 18 sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful 19 conduct and the constitutional violation. 20 Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 21 therefore generally “is only liable for constitutional violations of 22 his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the 23 violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent 24 them.” 25 // 26 // See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. Further, a supervisor – such as former SQSP Warden Robert K. Redman v. County of San A supervisor Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 27 28 (1) 3 1 III 2 Here, in the “Statement of Claim” section of the 3 Complaint, Plaintiff states as follows: 4 On April 24, 2009 the prison official[]s at San Quentin Prison [staged] a stabbing assault between myself and a northern hispanic inmate. This stabbing assault happened while the entire prison was on a state of “emergency lockdown” [due] to[] the black and northern hispanic inmates [were] at war with each other. There had been a full scale riot between the two inside of the main [dining] hall. When I came out for modified shower time for the black inmate[]s only[,] a northern inmate ran from his “unlocked cell” with a “manufactured knife” and stabbed me three time[]s in my face and four time[]s in my chest.” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Doc. #1 at 3. 13 seeking is assistance from the Court “with suing the Defendants.” 14 Id. 15 Plaintiff further states that the relief he is Other than naming former SQSP Warden Robert K. Wong as a 16 Defendant, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to identify by name 17 individual SQSP correctional officers who were deliberately 18 indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety. 19 any direct and specific allegations against named Defendant Robert 20 K. Wong showing either his personal involvement in any 21 constitutional deprivation or a sufficient causal connection between 22 his alleged wrongful conduct and any constitutional violation. 23 Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d at 1446. 24 Complaint, therefore, is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment 25 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 26 4 See Plaintiff’s In this situation the Court ordinarily would grant 27 28 Further, Plaintiff fails to make 1 Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint to correct the identified 2 pleading deficiencies, but it appears that Plaintiff already has 3 done so by filing a new action under case number C-11-4921-TEH (PR), 4 which is pending before this Court for initial review. 5 U.S.C. § 1915A. 6 allegations referencing the April 24, 2009 stabbing incident. 7 Reed v. Wong, No. 11-4921 TEH (PR) (N.D. Cal filed Oct. 5, 2011) 8 (Doc. #1). 9 allegations set forth in the instant Complaint, the Court will See 28 Plaintiff’s Complaint in that action contains See Because the complaint in that action contains the same 10 dismiss the instant action outright without leave to amend and will 11 allow the later-filed action, i.e., Reed v. Wong, No. 11-4921 TEH 12 (PR) (N.D. Cal filed Oct. 5, 2011), to proceed. 13 14 IV 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk is directed to 16 DISMISS the action. 17 pending motions as moot and close the file. The Clerk further is directed to terminate all 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 DATED 10/17/2011 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Reed-11-1720-dismiss-see 11-4921.wpd 27 28 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?