Hill v. Weaver et al

Filing 16

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/10/2022. (amg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CYMEYON V. HILL, Case No. 21-cv-03640-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 7 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 8 9 JENFFER WEAVER, Defendant. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Cymeyon V. Hill, a civil detainee currently in custody at California State Prison - 12 Sacrament, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was 13 previously incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Upon initial review, the Court 14 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so that plaintiff could attempt to cure several 15 deficiencies. See Dkt. 12. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in which he only requests 16 monetary relief. Dkt. 15. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must screen most prisoner civil 17 actions to, among other things, identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that fail to state a 18 claim upon which relief may be granted. 19 The amended complaint, like the original complaint, concerns allegations that plaintiff was 20 illegally transferred to the “CDCR in 2004 from Patton State Hospital” by defendant Weaver (who 21 is now the only named defendant) “based on false medical documents.” Dkt. 15 at 2. The 22 amended complaint further alleges the following: 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant [Weaver] is [a] deliberately indifferent racist and prejudice[d] toward Plaintiff by subjecting [him] to harsh excessive conditions of confinement with the malicious intent to inflict punishment on Plaintiff out of racial prejudice. Civilly committed inmates are supposed to obtain mental health treatment with a chance for release back in to the community and should not be treated like criminals[.] Defendant[’]s sole purpose is [to] continue to punish plaintiff because of [his] racial content[.] Defendant continues to endanger plaintiff[’]s safety out of prejudice. Id. at 3. No further allegations are included. 1 The amended complaint fails to state a claim against a viable defendant and therefore must 2 be dismissed. Further leave to amend will not be granted because the Court already explained 3 what plaintiff needed to allege, and he was unable or unwilling to do so in his amended complaint. 4 The first problem is that, contrary to the directions in the order of dismissal with leave to 5 amend, the allegations in the amended complaint still lack factual support showing that defendant 6 Weaver was aware of any safety concerns based on the decision to authorize plaintiff’s transfer to 7 SVSP. See Dkt. 15 at 2-3. At most, defendant Weaver’s actions seem to amount to negligence, 8 which is not actionable. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n4 (1994). In addition, 9 it seems that plaintiff one again only makes conclusory statements that defendant Weaver’s decision to transfer plaintiff was based on “false medical documents” or that such a decision was 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 because she had “malicious intent to inflict punishment on [him].” Dkt. 15 at 2-3. Even after the 12 Court instructed plaintiff to do so, he has failed to set forth specific facts showing how the named 13 defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s health and safety needs. See Dkt. 12 at 6 14 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). The Court specifically instructed as follows: 15 16 17 18 19 . . . it is not enough that a defendant was negligent or grossly negligent because he or she failed to alleviate a significant risk that he or she should have perceived. See [Farmer, 511 U.S.] at 838. Plaintiff also must link every defendant with his allegations of deliberate indifference to his health and safety needs so as to show how each defendant actually and proximately caused the deprivation of plaintiff’s federal rights of which he complains. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Id. Plaintiff has failed to correct the aforementioned deficiencies. 20 Secondly, although the initial complaint had alleged that the originally named defendants 21 were “punishing [him] for filing recent grievances,” see Dkt. 1 at 3, the amended complaint does 22 not attempt to allege such a claim. In the order of dismissal with leave to amend, the court 23 explained the elements of a retaliation claim and concluded that plaintiff “ha[d] not stated a 24 cognizable retaliation claim against the named defendants as he ha[d] failed to allege facts that 25 26 show the alleged retaliatory actions of which he complains were taken because of plaintiff’s protected conduct.” Dkt. 12 at 7. In his amended complaint, plaintiff no longer attempts to allege 27 a retaliation claim. 28 2 1 This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2 The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 6 Dated: May 10, 2022 ______________________________________ JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?