Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02260/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID STANLEY ALLRED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CTF SOLEDAD DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2260 MEJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

order. Based upon a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, it is dismissed

with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

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

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

Case 3:15-cv-02260-MEJ Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . .

a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible

on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that in late August and early September of 2013, plaintiff’s cellmate

informed staff at CTF that he was going to harm someone to avoid being transferred to

another prison. Just a few months earlier, plaintiff’s cellmate had been moved to

Administrative Segregation after stabbing another inmate. Despite this prior violent history,

CTF staff did nothing in response to the cellmate’s new threats. As a result, on or around

September 9, 2013, plaintiff’s cellmate attacked plaintiff with a razor. Plaintiff had to

receive 14 stitches for his injuries.

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). This

includes prison officials’ duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005); Gillespie v.

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1980). However, the failure of prison officials to

protect inmates from attacks by other inmates or from dangerous conditions at a prison

violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation

alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is, subjectively,

Case 3:15-cv-02260-MEJ Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; Hearns, 413 F.3d at

1040-41. 

A prison official cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for failing to

guarantee the safety of a prisoner unless the standard for criminal recklessness is met, i.e., the

official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See Farmer,

511 U.S. at 837. The official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. See

id. 

Deliberate indifference describes a more blameworthy state of mind than negligence. 

See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Negligence, and even gross

negligence, are not enough to amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 835. Deliberate indifference is not shown by merely stating that a defendant should have

known of a risk, but requires an actual perception of a risk that does not exist merely because

a reasonable person should have perceived a risk. Id. at 836. 

Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to amend to name individual defendants and

link them to his allegations of deliberate indifference to his safety. Plaintiff currently only

names “CTF Soledad Department of Corrections” as a defendant in the caption of his

complaint. He must name the individual CTF staff members who were deliberately

indifferent to his safety and allege how each of them actually and proximately caused the

deprivation of his federal rights of which he complains. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff is advised that a prison official cannot be liable for damages

under § 1983 simply because he is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. See

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

2. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this order, plaintiff must file an

amended complaint to cure the deficiencies noted above, if he truthfully can do so. Plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-02260-MEJ Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

shall use the court’s civil rights complaint form, a copy of which is provided herewith, and

include in the caption both the case number of this action, No. C 15-2260 MEJ (PR), and the

heading “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” Failure to file the amended complaint by the

deadline will result in the dismissal of the action. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which

are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by

reference. 

4. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. The Clerk shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02260-MEJ Document 7 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 4