Brown v. Flores et al

Filing 18

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/20/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(iym, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-CV-01578 LHK (PR)

MARK A. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

C. FLORES, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

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

17

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the amended

18

complaint with prejudice.

19
20

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of review

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

Case No. 18-CV-01578 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

1

1

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

2

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)

3
4

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

5

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

6

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

7

B.

Prior complaints

8

In plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff alleged that on specific days in January,

9

February, and March 2017, plaintiff’s cell flooded. Plaintiff alleged that he informed defendants
Correctional Officers C. Flores, A. Chavez, T. Grady, and T. Guiterrez about the flooding. On

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

January 26, 2017, Flores refused plaintiff cleaning supplies. On February 10, 2017, Chavez

12

refused him cleaning supplies. On February 17, 2017, Chavez informed plaintiff that she would

13

assist him, but she failed to do so. On February 18, 2017, Grady did not allow plaintiff to exit the

14

cell or use cleaning materials. On March 5, 2017, Grady again denied plaintiff cleaning supplies.

15

On March 6, 2017, plaintiff slipped on the water and suffered a concussion after hitting his head

16

on a metal bunk. On March 12, 2017, Guiterrez told plaintiff that Guiterrez put in a work order to

17

fix the flooding.

18

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The court advised plaintiff that

19

plaintiff must provide non-conclusory facts from which it could be inferred that each defendant

20

actually knew that there was a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff yet failed to act. The

21

court warned plaintiff that the failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with its order

22

would result in the dismissal of this case.

23

A review of plaintiff’s amended complaint shows that the factual allegations in the

24

amended complaint are exactly the same as those stated in plaintiff’s original complaint.

25

Plaintiff’s allegations do not provide any non-conclusory facts from which it can be inferred that

26
27
28

Case No. 18-CV-01578 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

2

1

any defendant possessed a culpable state of mind sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim.

2

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Even after the court

3

explained to the deficiencies in plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff failed to cure those

4

deficiencies and instead filed a verbatim copy of his original complaint. Therefore, the court finds

5

that giving plaintiff further leave to amend would be futile, and this case is dismissed with

6

prejudice.
CONCLUSION

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall terminate all
pending motions and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
LUCY H. KOH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 18-CV-01578 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

3