Parks v. Williams

Filing 7

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/9/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

STEVEN DEAN PARKS,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-6140 EMC (pr)

G. WILLIAMS, C/O,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

Steven Dean Parks, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights

16

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer Williams for allegedly falsifying a

17

CDC 128-A counseling chrono that documented minor inmate misconduct (i.e., showering at an

18

unauthorized time), and imposed no discipline. Upon reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A, the Court issued an order discussing several deficiencies in the complaint and dismissing it

20

with leave to amend. Mr. Parks then filed an amended complaint, which is now before the Court for

21

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

22

The amended complaint fails to cure the deficiencies of the original complaint. The

23

amended complaint does not state a claim for a due process violation based on the allegedly false

24

counseling chrono that defendant wrote. As the Court explained in the order of dismissal with leave

25

to amend, to allege a cognizable due process claim, Mr. Parks had to allege facts showing that the

26

falsification of the counseling chrono caused the imposition of an atypical and significant hardship

27

or inevitably affected the duration of Mr. Parks’ confinement. In his amended complaint, Mr. Parks

28

alleges that the presence of the counseling chrono in his central file will work to his detriment in his

1

parole consideration. However, as the Court explained in the order of dismissal with leave to

2

amend, the possible effect of a report of prison misconduct on later parole consideration is simply

3

too speculative to meet the Sandin test for a protected liberty interest. See Docket # 4 at 4-5 (citing

4

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995)). The due process claim must be dismissed.

5

Mr. Parks contends in his amended complaint that C/O Williams was deliberately indifferent

6

to his medical needs because C/O Williams ordered him out of the shower that he really needed

7

because he had earlier used recalled soap, had a “neuro-virus,” had soiled himself with his own

8

feces. As explained in the order of dismissal with leave to amend, “[t]he fact that the soap was

9

recalled due to trace amounts of a carcinogen does not suggest a serious medical need for an inmate
who had used it.” See Docket # 5 at 3. As also explained in the order of dismissal with leave to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

amend, his alleged condition of having a neuro-virus does not show deliberate indifference because,

12

when Mr. Parks claimed to have a right to shower for his neuro-virus, C/O Williams allegedly asked

13

to see a permission slip for a shower and Mr. Parks did not produce any chrono or authorization for

14

him to shower. See id. at 4. (As the Court noted, the inmate ducat Mr. Parks claimed authorized the

15

shower plainly was for a “BP check” rather than a shower, and was for the day before the shower

16

incident. Id. See Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 69 F.3d 669, 674 (2d Cir. 1995) (document

17

attached document will be read to evidence what it incontestably shows once one assumes that it is

18

what the complaint says it is or that it is what it appears to be). Finally, the allegation that he was

19

written up for showering when he had feces on him does not show a cognizable claim for deliberate

20

indifference to his medical needs, as he alleges that he already was showering when C/O Williams

21

told him to get out of the shower and wrote up the counseling chrono. The counseling chrono

22

written after-the-fact did not amount to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.) The

23

amended complaint fails to allege an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to Mr.

24

Parks’ serious medical needs.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED because the amended complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk shall close the file.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: October 9, 2013

7

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3