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)

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