Brown v. San Mateo County Sheriff Office

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 30, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ABAYOMI OTIS BROWN,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-06798-JST (PR)

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF
OFFICE,

13

Defendant.

14
15

INTRODUCTION

16

Plaintiff, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims arising from his assault by a rival gang member.

18

The Court identified various deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave to

19

amend. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which is now before the Court for review.
DISCUSSION

20
21

A.

Standard of Review

22

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

27

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,

28

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

1
2

B.

Legal Claims
In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges on February 12, 2016, he was housed in a pod

3

that held two rival gangs. Defendant Deputy Bernacil called plaintiff out of his cell so that

4

plaintiff could receive his medication. As plaintiff was receiving his medication, he noticed a rival

5

gang member also out of his cell, and they instantly began to fight.

6

The Court noted that, in his original complaint, plaintiff appeared to be attempting to state

7

a claim for deliberate indifference to his safety and identified the basic flaws in his complaint.

8

The Court noted that the legal standard for a deliberate indifference claim is different for pretrial

9

detainees as opposed to convicted prisoners. The Court explained to plaintiff the legal standard
under both scenarios and provided plaintiff with thirty days in which to file an amended

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

complaint. In the amended complaint, plaintiff clarifies that he was not a pretrial detainee at the

12

time of the events at issue but rather a convicted prisoner serving the balance of his sentence at the

13

county jail. Accordingly, the Eighth Amendment standard for deliberate indifference applies.

14

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

15

guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). This includes

16

prison officials’ duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Id. at 833;

17

Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642

18

& n.3 (9th Cir. 1980). However, the failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by

19

other inmates or from dangerous conditions at a prison violates the Eighth Amendment only when

20

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

21

(2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s safety. Farmer, 511

22

U.S. at 834; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040-41. The official must both be aware of facts from which the

23

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the

24

inference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

25

In the amended complaint, plaintiff complains that Deputy Bernacil did not protect him

26

from an assault by another prisoner. Plaintiff does not allege, however, that Deputy Bernacil had

27

any knowledge that a rival gang member was in plaintiff’s vicinity let alone any forewarning of

28

the impending fight. Indeed, plaintiff’s prior filings specify that the officer in charge was simply
2

1

not paying attention to what was happening in the pod because he was “on the phone laughing

2

with his feet kicked up.” See dkt. no. 1 at 3. Plaintiff’s allegations at most describe negligence or

3

gross negligence, neither of which constitutes deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at

4

835-36 & n.4.
CONCLUSION

5
6

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED. Dismissal is without leave to amend

7

because plaintiff has been given an opportunity to amend and it appears that further amendment

8

would be futile. However, dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff pursuing in state court any

9

claims he may have under state law. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendant, and

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2017

13
14
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3