Blanco v. Maguire Correction Facility

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 3/21/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MICHAEL EDMUNDO BLANCO,
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-05898 NC (PR)

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

13

MAGUIRE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,

14
15

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended civil rights

17
18
19

complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 For the reasons that follow, the court dismisses
the amended complaint.

20

BACKGROUND

21
22

I.

23

Standard of Review
A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

24
1

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff previously consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at 4.

Case No. 16-cv-05898 NC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

1

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

2

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any

3

cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

4

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

5
6
7

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally
construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

8
9

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)

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West

12

v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

13

II.

14

Plaintiff’s Claims
In the original complaint, Plaintiff claimed that on October 21, 2015, at Maguire

15
16

Correctional Facility in San Mateo, Plaintiff was housed in a unit with two other groups of

17

inmates who had a history of violence between them. While Plaintiff was out during

18

recreation time with one group of inmates, an unnamed staff member unlocked all the

19

doors in the housing unit, allowing the other group of inmates to run out and attack those

20
21

who were already out at recreation time. Plaintiff argues that although he defended

22

himself, he and others were overpowered. He alleges that his safety and security were

23

ignored by the Maguire Correctional Facility, and that the facility did not take proper

24

precautions to avoid the attack.

25
26
27
28

Case No. 16-cv-05898 NC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

1

This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. It informed

2

Plaintiff that in order to state a cognizable claim that Defendant was deliberately

3

indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety, Plaintiff must provide facts sufficient to infer that

4

Defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety by failing

5
6

to take reasonable steps to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

7

The Court found that, liberally construed, at best, Plaintiff’s facts suggested that Defendant

8

acted with negligence, but not with deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-

9

36 & n.4 (recognizing that neither negligence nor gross negligence will constitute

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

deliberate indifference). In addition, the Court informed Plaintiff that Defendant Maguire

12

Correctional Facility was a municipal entity. As such, to impose municipal liability under

13

Section 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights resulting from governmental inaction

14

or omission, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of

15
16

which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy

17

amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) that the

18

policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School

19
20
21
22
23
24

Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff had not alleged
any facts to show that Defendant’s action or inaction was a result of any policy. The Court
directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint if he could correct the deficiencies.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff named as Defendants Maguire Correctional
Facility, San Mateo County, and San Mateo County’s Sheriff’s Department. Plaintiff

25
26
27
28

Case No. 16-cv-05898 NC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3

1

alleged that prison officials allowed a civilian contractor to train the staff on operation of

2

“the new door system.” During the training, “facility staff failed to adhere to the

3

segregation protocol . . . and ran an unsecured training while a group was out and the

4

training contractor unlocked all the doors in the unit.” Am. Compl. at 3. This resulted in

5
6
7

the two groups engaging in physical violence.
As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, a prisoner may state a Section 1983

8

claim under the Eighth Amendment against prison officials only where the officials acted

9

with “deliberate indifference” to the threat of serious harm or injury to an inmate by

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

another prisoner. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, again,

12

liberally construed, Plaintiff’s facts show that the opening of the door by an unnamed

13

person was a mistake, which is insufficient to make a claim of deliberate indifference. In

14

addition, all Defendants are a part of San Mateo County, which is a municipality.

15
16

Despite having been informed of the factors needed to plead a cognizable claim for

17

municipal liability, Plaintiff has not set forth any facts suggesting that San Mateo County

18

had a relevant policy, much less a policy that amounted to deliberate indifference, or a

19
20
21

policy that was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. In fact, Plaintiff’s
allegations demonstrate that there was a “segregation protocol” or policy in place, but

22

unnamed staff members failed to abide by it. Case law is clear that random acts or isolated

23

incidents of unconstitutional action by a non-policymaking employee are insufficient to

24

establish the existence of a municipal policy or custom. See Rivera v. County of Los

25
26
27
28

Case No. 16-cv-05898 NC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

4

1
2
3
4

Angeles, 745 F.3d 384, 398 (9th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief against
Defendants. The amended complaint is DISMISSED. Because the Court has previously
warned Plaintiff about the deficiencies of his original complaint, and Plaintiff has not

5
6
7

cured either deficiency in his amended complaint, the Court finds that further leave to
amend would be futile.

8
9

CONCLUSION
The amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk shall

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

terminate all motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED:

March 21, 2017

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

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

Case No. 16-cv-05898 NC (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

5