Arnold v. Smith et al

Filing 11

ORDER of Dismissal with Leave to Amend by Judge Edward M. Chen. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RICHARD L. ARNOLD,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-4456 EMC (pr)

BRAD SMITH; et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

13
14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

Richard L. Arnold, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action

17

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has paid the full filing fee. His complaint is now before the Court for

18

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

The complaint alleges the following:

21

From May 9, 2012 through June 6, 2012, Mr. Arnold was in a work unit that was required to

22

clean and/or work in an area containing lead paint and asbestos. Joe Dobie failed to provide Mr.

23

Arnold with “personal protective equipment during inventory.” Docket # 1 at 3. Mr. Dobie

24

instructed Mr. Arnold “to remove lead base[d] paints from the windows, and wall [panels] down to

25

bare metal,” and had him doing this work while others were power washing pipes encased in

26

asbestos, without providing proper training or proper protective gear to shield Mr. Arnold against

27

the asbestos and lead exposure in the CAL-PIA mattress and bedding factory at San Quentin. Id. at

28

3-4. Mr. Arnold has several health problems resulting from his exposure to asbestos and lead paint.

1

PIA supervisor, Mr. Loredo, and PIA manager, Mr. Earley, intentionally attempted to

2

minimize the severity of the exposure by failing to properly fill in worker’s compensation forms that

3

Mr. Arnold had been exposed to asbestos. Id. at 4.

4

III.

5

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks

6

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

8

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

9

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro
se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(9th Cir. 1990).

12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right

13

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation was

14

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

15

(1988).

16

Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s health or safety violates the Eighth Amendment.

17

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only

18

when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and

19

(2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. See Farmer

20

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Under the deliberate indifference standard, the prison official

21

must not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

22

serious harm exists,” but “must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. Liberally construed, the

23

complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Joe Dobie for permitting

24

or requiring Mr. Arnold to clean an area with lead paint and asbestos without adequate protective

25

gear. See Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 1995) (requiring inmates to clean from

26

attic material known to contain asbestos without protective gear demonstrated deliberate

27

indifference).

28

2

1

The complaint does not state a § 1983 claim against Mr. Loredo or Mr. Earley based on their

2

conduct in allegedly not properly filling out worker’s compensation forms. If Mr. Arnold wants to

3

plead one or more state law claims against them for this conduct, he must identify and allege the

4

particular state law claim(s), and should allege that he is suing for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (the

5

supplemental jurisdiction provision) as well as under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the civil rights statute that

6

gives the Court federal question jurisdiction over the case).

7

Finally, the biggest problem in the complaint is the complete absence of any allegations

8

against the several other defendants, who are listed as defendants but are not alleged to have

9

engaged in any acts or omissions. There are many exhibits attached to the complaint, but it is a
plaintiff’s obligation to write out a complete statement of his claims, rather than to expect the Court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

to read through exhibits to piece one together for him. Mr. Arnold will be given leave to amend to

12

file an amended complaint that provides a complete statement of his claims. Mr. Arnold is

13

cautioned that he needs to link individual defendants to each of his claims. He should not refer to

14

them as a group (e.g., “the defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name

15

and link each of them to his claim by explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do

16

that caused a violation of his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).1

17

IV.

CONCLUSION

18

The complaint states a cognizable § 1983 claim against Mr. Dobie but fails to state a § 1983

19

claim upon which relief may be granted against any of the other listed defendants. Plaintiff is given

20

leave to file an amended complaint so that he may allege one or more claims against each of the

21

listed defendants. The amended complaint must be filed no later than August 29, 2014, and must

22

include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED

23

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a

24

complete statement of his claims, so he must repeat his claims against Mr. Dobie, as well as allege

25
26
27
28

1

There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that
one is liable simply because he employs a person who has violated plaintiff’s rights. See Monell v.
Dep’t of Social Servs.,436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
1989). A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the
constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful
conduct and the constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2011).

3

1

claims against the other defendants. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir.

2

2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not

3

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for

4

any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) If

5

Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by the deadline, all defendants other than Mr. Dobie will

6

be dismissed and the action will proceed against just him.

7

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to answer his complaint is DENIED as

8

premature. Docket # 10. The Court also notes that Defendants are permitted by statute to file a

9

waiver of reply instead of an answer. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: July 28, 2014

14

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

4