Samuel v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department
Filing
5
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
JACQUES LONDON SAMUEL,
9
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
v.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.16-cv-05560-JSC
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT,
12
13
Defendant.
14
INTRODUCTION
15
16
Plaintiff, an inmate in the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint
17
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. 1 Plaintiff’s application to
18
proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the
19
complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
20
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
21
22
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
23
1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
24
the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
25
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
26
§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901
27
1
28
Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (ECF No. 4.)
1
2
F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
3
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
4
statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
5
which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to
6
state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to
7
provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
8
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . .. Factual allegations must
9
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988).
LEGAL CLAIMS
16
17
Plaintiff alleges that he is a “validated” member of a gang called the Portrero Hill Gang,
and that Sherriff’s Department officials at the county jail knowingly allowed him to be in the same
18
classroom with a member of a rival gang called the Page Street Gang. When he inquired about
19
this, officials told him that members of rival black gangs are not separated, unlike members of
20
rival Mexican gangs, because members of rival black gangs do not always attack each other on
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
sight but rival Mexican gang members do. Plaintiff claims that this practice constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment by exposing him to dangerous inmates, as well as discrimination on the basis
of race. He seeks monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief to stop recurrence of his
exposure to members of a rival gang.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim that Defendant violated his constitutional right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment. First, as Plaintiff is in the county jail and presumably
a pretrial detainee, his claim falls under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause not the
28
2
1
Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
2
520, 535 (1979).
3
Second, the allegations that he was exposed to harm from other inmates are not sufficient
4
to state a failure-to-protect due process claim. In the context of claims for failure to protect an
5
inmate from harm from other inmates, a pretrial detainee must prove that Defendant acted with
6
“more than negligence but less than subjective intent -- something akin to reckless disregard.”
7
Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1068-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The elements
8
of a pretrial detainee’s due process failure-to-protect claim are:
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the
conditions under which the plaintiff was confined;
(2) Those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering
serious harm;
(3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures to
abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the circumstances
would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved -- making
the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and
(4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s
injuries.
Id. at 1071 (footnote omitted).
15
Plaintiff has not provided sufficient allegations on the second element. He does not allege
16
that he was attacked by members of the Page Street Gang, or that members of that gang commonly
17
attack members of Plaintiff’s gang on sight or otherwise present a substantial risk of harm to him.
18
He simply alleges that they were a “rival” gang; without specific allegations that the rivalry
19
presents a substantial risk of harm at the level of exposure Plaintiff experienced, the second
20
element of a due process claim is not adequately pled. Similarly, because Plaintiff has not alleged
21
that the Page Street Gang members commonly attack Portrero Hill Gang members, he has not
22
satisfied the third element that a reasonable officer would know not to allow members of the two
23
gangs in the same room. Consequently, the claim must be dismissed. It is also noted that because
24
Plaintiff does not allege that he was hurt in the incident, there is no basis for him to collect
25
monetary damages on this claim, although the lack of physical harm to him would not preclude the
26
availability of injunctive relief assuming he can satisfy all of the elements of the claim. See
27
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994) (prisoner need not wait until he is actually assaulted
28
3
1
or harmed to state a claim and obtain relief). Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his
2
complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claim due process
3
claim.
4
Plaintiff’s claim of racial discrimination is also not sufficiently pled. "Prisoners are
protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invidious
6
discrimination based on race." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (citation omitted).
7
A prison classification based on race is immediately suspect and requires officials to demonstrate
8
that the race-based policy or action is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
9
Johnson, 543 U.S. at 505-06, 510-11. A claim of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection
10
Clause also requires demonstration of discriminatory intent. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
239-40 (1976). The first step in determining whether the inmate’s equal protection rights were
12
violated is to identify the relevant class of prisoners to which he belongs. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705
13
F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). The class must be comprised of similarly situated persons so that
14
the factor motivating the alleged discrimination can be identified. Id. at 1031.
15
Plaintiff has alleged that he is not similarly situated to inmates who are being treated
16
differently from him. Specifically, he has alleged that he is a member of a different gang than the
17
Mexican gangs who are kept separate from each other. He has alleged that the jail policy is
18
treating inmates differently based upon the gang they are in, not based upon their race. Under
19
such a policy, a black member of a Mexican gang would be treated similarly to any other members
20
of that gang regardless of their race, as would any person of any race who is a member of a black
21
gang. In other words, he has alleged that it is the inmate’s gang membership and that gang’s
22
known history --- as opposed to the inmate’s race --- that determines whether jail officials separate
23
the inmate from rival gang members. It may well be that all members of the black gangs are black
24
and all members of the Mexican gangs are Mexican, and it may also be that the black gangs have
25
the same history as the Mexican gangs, but if that is the case, Plaintiff has not so alleged.
26
Consequently, his claim of racial discrimination must be dismissed, albeit with leave to file an
27
amended complaint in which he attempts to make the allegations necessary to state a cognizable
28
equal protection claim.
4
CONCLUSION
1
1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an
2
3
amended complaint within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. The
4
amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C 16-5560 JSC
5
(PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page.
6
Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet,
7
963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original
8
complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time and in accordance with this
9
order will result in the dismissal of this action.
2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion.
12
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
13
41(b).
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 27, 2016
16
17
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
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?