Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01356/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01356-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv1356-grt IFP & dsm #2wpd.wpd 1 10cv1356 BTM (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY REID, Civil No. 10cv1356 BTM (BLM)

Plaintiff, ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 2]; AND

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

AND FOR SEEKING MONETARY

DAMAGES AGAINST IMMUNE

DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; CALIPATRIA STATE

PRISON,

Defendants.

Roy Reid, a former state inmate, initially filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

in the Eastern District of California. On June 25, 2010, Magistrate Judge Kimberly Mueller

issued an Order transferring the matter to the Southern District of California. Plaintiff has not

prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]. 

I. Motion to Proceed IFP

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

Case 3:10-cv-01356-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv1356-grt IFP & dsm #2wpd.wpd 2 10cv1356 BTM (BLM)

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Because it appears that Plaintiff was

not incarcerated at the time he filed this action, he is not subject to the filing fee garnishment

found in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Accordingly, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets, just as it would for any

other non-prisoner litigant seeking IFP status, see S.D. CAL.CIVLR3.2(d), finds it is sufficient

to show that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to maintain this action,

and hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc.

No. 2].

II. Sua Sponte Screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Any complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP is subject to sua sponte dismissal by the

Court to the extent it contains claims which are “frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(holding that “the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”).

Plaintiff’s only allegations in his Complaint consist of allegations that he suffered a fall

on November 4, 2009 as a result of a wet floor. (See Compl. at 3.) Presumably, this injury

occurred while he was housed at Calipatria State Prison but there are no other facts supporting

Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, the Court liberally construes this as an Eighth Amendment claim.

The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” imposes a

duty on prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement and to take reasonable

measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31-33

(1993). However, every injury suffered by an inmate does not necessarily translate into

constitutional liability for prison officials. Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir.

1996); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981) (noting that the U.S. Constitution “does

not mandate comfortable prisons.”). 

Case 3:10-cv-01356-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv1356-grt IFP & dsm #2wpd.wpd 3 10cv1356 BTM (BLM)

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state an Eighth Amendment claim because they do not

rise to the level of a serious safety hazard. See Osolinski, 92 F.3d at 939 (finding that prisoner’s

injury due to faulty oven door was not sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment cruel and

unusual punishment claim because Plaintiff did not plead any “exacerbating conditions” which

rendered him unable to “provide for [his] own safety,” i.e., that prison officials precluded him

from avoiding the faulty oven door or rendered him unable to perceive its defective condition);

see also Tunstall v. Rowe, 478 F. Supp. 87, 89 (N. D. Ill. 1979) (the existence of a greasy

staircase which caused a prisoner to slip and fall did not violate the Eighth Amendment). As

currently pleaded, the Court finds that Plaintiff alleges no facts which are sufficient to show that

the conditions of confinement were objectively and demonstrably unsafe, and further fails to

allege facts that any individual correctional officers were actually aware and consciously

disregarded the risk posed. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 36 (exposure to demonstrably unsafe

conditions may violate the Eighth Amendment if the inmate can show that the risk he faced was

“so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed for failing to state a

claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted.

In addition, Plaintiff names only the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and Calipatria State Prison as Defendants in this matter. The State of

California, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as an agency of

the State of California, are not “persons” subject to suit and are instead, entitled to absolute

immunity from monetary damages actions under the Eleventh Amendment. See Seminole Tribe

of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 53-54 (1996); Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman,

465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984); see also Hale v. State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir.

1993) (holding that a state department of corrections is not a “person” within the meaning of §

1983). In order to state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must identify a “person” who, acting

under color of state law, deprived him of a right guaranteed under the Constitution or a federal

statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Case 3:10-cv-01356-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv1356-grt IFP & dsm #2wpd.wpd 4 10cv1356 BTM (BLM)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation and Calipatria State Prison are dismissed with prejudice pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2-1]

is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

2. The claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

and Calipatria State Prison are dismissed with prejudice for seeking monetary damages against

immune Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The remaining claims are

dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3. Plaintiff is granted sixty (60) days from the date this Order is “Filed” in which to

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. CA. CIV.LR. 15.1. Defendants not named and

all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 6, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01356-BTM-BLM Document 9 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 4