Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00217-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0217 MCE KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 11, 2005, defendants Blanas, Foster, Lewis,

Waterstadt and Cooper filed a motion to dismiss. On February 7, 2005, plaintiff filed an

opposition to defendants’ motion, which the court construed as including a request for leave to

amend. On March 17, 2005, the court granted plaintiff thirty days within which to file a third

amended complaint. Plaintiff was informed that if he failed to file a third amended complaint

within thirty days, the court would proceed to resolve defendants’ motion to dismiss. The thirty

day period has now expired and plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint. Therefore, the

court will determine defendants’ motion to dismiss.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 28 Filed 05/26/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

I. Motion To Dismiss Standard

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of

the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and

resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Moreover, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.

69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

II. Defendants’ Argument And Analysis

Defendants claim that plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted and that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s allegations. 

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff asserts the conditions of the showers at the

Sacramento County Jail, at the relevant time period, were dangerous, that the defendants who

have now appeared in this action were aware of as much, they failed to make the showers safe

despite their knowledge, and plaintiff eventually was hurt due to the unsafe conditions. Liberally

construing plaintiff’s pro se pleadings, as the court must do, see Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d

1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987), plaintiff states a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1991). Furthermore, the facts pled are sufficient to

establish that the court has jurisdiction over this matter as required by Rule 8(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the court will recommend that the motion to dismiss filed

by defendants Blanas, Foster, Lewis, Waterstadt and Cooper be denied and that they be ordered

to file their answer within twenty days. 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 28 Filed 05/26/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

III. Defendant B. Blannas

On December 7, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve

plaintiff’s second amended complaint on defendants including defendant B. Blannas. It appears

the Marshal has not served defendant B. Blannas because the USM-285 form concerning B.

Blannas submitted by plaintiff on November 30, 2005 was not completed correctly. See Process

Receipt and Return filed March 21, 2005. Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be given a second

and final opportunity to complete a USM-285 for defendant B. Blannas so that service of process

may be completed on him.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form, a

blank summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the second amended complaint filed March

10, 2004;

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant B. Blannas; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed March 10,

2004; and

c. One completed summons.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Blanas, Foster, Lewis, Waterstadt

and Cooper’s January 11, 2005 be denied; and

2. Defendants Blanas, Foster, Lewis, Waterstadt and Cooper be ordered to file

their answer within twenty days. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 28 Filed 05/26/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

slau0217.57

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 28 Filed 05/26/05 Page 4 of 5
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-03-0217 MCE KJM P 

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

OF DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Second Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-00217-DFL -KJM Document 28 Filed 05/26/05 Page 5 of 5