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
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?