Larkin v. Jeter
Filing
8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District
Court
11
JETHRO L. LARKIN II,
12
No. C-12-0209 TEH (PR)
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
STEVEN JETER,
15
Defendant.
/
16
17
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner incarcerated at
18
California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, has
19
filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
20
alleging that on November 10, 2011, Pelican Bay State Prison
21
(“PBSP”) correctional officer Steven Jeter caused him harm by
22
deliberately and carelessly refusing to take away a dirty food tray
23
and replace it with a clean food tray.
24
seeks a letter of apology from Officer Jeter; $13,000 in general
25
damages; $36,000 in compensatory damages; and $45,000 in punitive
26
damages.
27
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
28
Doc. #1 at 5-6.
Plaintiff
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s complaint is
Petitioner’s
1
applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be
2
addressed in a separate order.
3
4
5
I
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of
6
cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
7
officer or employee of a governmental entity.
8
The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint,
9
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous,
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
10
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
11
granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
12
from such relief.”
13
litigants, however, must be liberally construed.
14
627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
15
Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Id. § 1915A(b).
Pleadings filed by pro se
Hebbe v. Pliler,
16
17
18
A
Plaintiff complains that on November 10, 2011, he received
19
a food tray that was dirty and covered with “thick-thick brown
20
greasy oil food stains.”
21
Jeter, the floor officer at the time, that his tray was dirty.
22
Plaintiff alleges that Officer Jeter responded to him in a “hard
23
mean voice” and dismissed his concerns and told him to file an
24
administrative appeal regarding Food Services instead of bothering
25
the floor officers.
26
complained about an unsanitary food tray on September 15, 2011 and
Id.
Doc. #1 at 5.
Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he had previously
27
28
Plaintiff informed Officer
2
1
was informed at that time that he should alert the floor officer to
2
the unsanitary food tray and that the floor officer was to contact
3
Food Services and arrange for a replacement food tray.
4
Plaintiff alleges that Officer Jeter’s failure to obtain him a
5
replacement food tray is a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Id.
6
7
B.
8
9
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements:
(1) that a right secured by the
10
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that
11
the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
12
color of state law.
13
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits
14
the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments.
15
does not mandate comfortable prisons, . . . but neither does it
16
permit inhumane ones.”
17
(1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
18
treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under
19
which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth
20
Amendment.
21
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’”
22
at 834 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)).
23
determining whether a deprivation of a basic necessity is
24
sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth
25
Amendment claim, a court must consider the circumstances, nature,
26
and duration of the deprivation.
Id.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
The
Prison authorities may not deny prisoners “‘the
Farmer, 511 U.S.
The more basic the need, the
27
28
“The Constitution
3
In
1
shorter the time it can be withheld.
2
726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000).
3
against cruel and unusual punishment, this does not mean that
4
federal courts can or should interfere whenever prisoners are
5
inconvenienced or suffer de minimis injuries.
6
v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (9th Cir.) (temporary
7
placement in safety cell that was dirty and smelled bad did not
8
constitute infliction of pain), amended 75 F.3d 448 (9th Cir. 1995);
9
Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1988) (allegation
10
that inmate slept without mattress for one night is insufficient to
11
state 8th Amendment violation and no amendment can alter that
12
deficiency), judgment vacated on other grounds 493 U.S. 801 (1989);
13
Holloway v. Gunnell, 685 F.2d 150, 155-56 (5th Cir. 1982) (no claim
14
stated where prisoner forced to spend two days in hot dirty cell
15
with no water for hours).
16
Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d
Although the Eighth Amendment protects
See, e.g., Anderson
The complaint fails to state a claim for relief under
17
§ 1983.
18
insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation, and no
19
amendment of the complaint can cure that.
20
tray covered with a layer of greasy food stains did not deprive
21
Plaintiff of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
The failure to provide Plaintiff with a clean food tray is
27
28
4
Being provided a food
1
II
2
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s complaint is
3
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
4
shall deny all pending motions as moot and close the file.
5
The clerk
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED
7
04/25/2012
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
8
9
10
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.12\Larkin-12-0209-dismissal.ftsc.wpd
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?