Graham v. Santa Cruz Co. Jail et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/24/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

MATTHEW JAMES GRAHAM,

Case No. C 14-2845 KAW (PR)

Plaintiff,
6
7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

Plaintiff Matthew James Graham, a state prisoner incarcerated at Santa Cruz County Jail

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

(“SCCJ”), has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation

13

of his constitutional rights by SCCJ and the Santa Cruz County Sheriff Phil Wowak. Plaintiff has

14

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge over this action.

15

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a completed IFP

16

application, which is granted in a separate order. The Court now addresses the claims asserted in

17

Plaintiff’s complaint.

18
19
20

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

25

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

26

Cir. 1988).

27
28

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

1

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

2

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the

3
4

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the

5

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Caifornia Dep’t of Corrections &

6

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.

7

1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives

8

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act,

9

participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to
do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II.

12

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff's brief complaint alleges that, due to overcrowding, the following conditions exist

13

at SCCJ: (1) over fifty-four inmates must use one shower; (2) over 244 inmates must use one

14

toilet; (3) space in the day room, dining room and recreation room has been reduced because

15

additional bunks have been added; and (4) there is no way to dry towels. Plaintiff requests

16

injuctive relief of reducing the jail poplulation to the maximum allowed by state law.

17

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, and overcrowding itself is not a

18

per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See

19

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1249-50 (9th Cir.

20

1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). However, the

21

Constitution is violated when overcrowding results in specific effects forming the basis for an

22

Eighth Amendment violation, such as reduction in services and an increase in violence

23

disproportionate to the simple increase in numbers. Id. at 1249; see Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d

24

119, 120 (9th Cir. 1987) (allegations of increase in stress, tension, communicable diseases, and

25

confrontations between inmates due to overcrowding states 8th Amendment claim). A court may

26

hold jail crowding unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment only if "an individual plaintiff

27

proves that the crowding causes the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment of that inmate." 18

28

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1).
2

1

Plaintiff's general allegations about overcrowding do not state an Eighth Amendment claim

2

for cruel and unusual punishment due to unsafe prison conditions. However, Plaintiff may be able

3

to allege specific instances in which the overcrowding results in unsafe conditions that affect him

4

directly. Plaintiff is granted leave to add such allegations in an amended complaint.
CONCLUSION

5
6

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

7

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set
forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this

9

Order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this Order and the words

10

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik

12

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the

13

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the

14

dismissal of this action.

15

2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

16

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

17

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so

18

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 41(b).

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: 9/24/14

____________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3