Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03277/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03277-2/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

No. C 15-3277 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

*E-Filed 4/6/16*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

GREGORY GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. BRIGHT, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3277 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleges that his jailors at Soledad State Prison violated his

Eighth Amendment rights when they refused his request for single-cell housing. The original

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff since has filed a first amended

complaint, which after a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), is DISMISSED with leave to

file an amended complaint on or before May 16, 2016. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

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

Case 3:15-cv-03277-RS Document 8 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 6
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

No. C 15-3277 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that 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. See id.

§ 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. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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

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

B. Legal Claims 

1. Original Complaint

In the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that his jailors at Soledad State Prison

violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they declined his request to be housed alone. 

Such housing was necessary, according to plaintiff, because his snoring, caused by sleep

apnea, irritates his cellmate. This irritation once caused a fight between plaintiff and his

former cellmate in December 2014, who both were later found guilty of a rules violation and

housed separately. Single-cell housing, plaintiff asserts, would protect him from such

attacks. In 2015, that is, after the attack, plaintiff received a Continuous Positive Airway

Pressure ventilator (“CPAP”) to treat his sleep apnea. The machine appears to be effective

Case 3:15-cv-03277-RS Document 8 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 6
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

No. C 15-3277 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

because plaintiff reports no fights since he has used it. 

The Court dismissed his Eighth Amendment claim because one fight did not show his

jailors were deliberately indifferent. Furthermore, his CPAP would reduce or eliminate his

snoring, thereby removing the possibility of an attack by a cellmate irritated by his snoring. 

2. First Amended Complaint

In the first amended complaint, plaintiff realleges his Eighth Amendment claim. He

also raises the new claim that his jailors discriminated against him because of his disability

(sleep apnea), in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

1. Eighth Amendment 

Plaintiff alleges that the attack by his cellmate shows a likelihood of a future attack. 

He also alleges he has a declaration (not submitted to the Court) from an inmate who,

according to plaintiff, asserts sleep apnea makes it “impossible” to be double-celled with

another inmate. Not only is the snoring intolerable, but the CPAP is “too loud,” according to

plaintiff’s characterization of the inmate’s declaration. (Am. Compl. at 4.) 

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). In

particular, prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. Id. at 833. The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks by other

inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the Eighth Amendment when two

requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and 

(2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate health or safety.

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety by failing to take reasonable steps to

abate it. Id. at 837. 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet these standards. He cites a single instance of being

attacked by another inmate, an attack that occurred before he had his CPAP. One incident is

insufficient to show a future attack was so likely that his jailors were deliberately indifferent

Case 3:15-cv-03277-RS Document 8 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 6
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

No. C 15-3277 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

to his health or safety when they denied his housing request. Furthermore, the probative

value of the fight decreases greatly when one considers that a CPAP will likely reduce or

eliminate his snoring. In fact, plaintiff reports no attacks since he started using the CPAP. 

Also, his former cellmate may have been more sensitive than others, or he may have been

motivated by other reasons specific to him. 

His citation to a fellow inmate’s declaration, which the Court has not seen, is

unavailing. According to plaintiff’s description of the inmate’s statements, it does not

indicate that violence will occur. Rather, it says merely that the CPAP is too loud and that

living with another inmate is, without elaboration, “impossible.” This is insufficient to show

a future attack is likely.

Because these allegations do not show a reasonable likelihood that he is in danger of

future attacks, defendants’ refusal does not amount to a failure to protect. In sum, he fails to

show “more than a sheer possibility that [ ] defendants ha[ve] acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 129

U.S. at 1949. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is DISMISSED with leave

to amend. 

2. ADA

Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by

reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the

services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any

such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must

allege four elements: (1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to

participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities;

(3) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s

services, programs or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity;

and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 3:15-cv-03277-RS Document 8 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 6
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

No. C 15-3277 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

A disability includes a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or

more major life activities of an individual. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(a). For purposes of section

12102(a), “major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing

manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking,

breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” Id. 

§ 12102(2)(A).

Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet these standards. First, he has not alleged facts

indicating that he has a disability. He simply declares, without elaboration, that sleep apnea

is a disability. This “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted). For his ADA claim to survive,

plaintiff must allege specific facts. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 556 (citations omitted). In sum, in order for this

claim to survive, plaintiff must plead specific facts showing how sleep apnea “substantially

limits” a major life activity, such as sleeping. 

Second, his allegations his jailors discriminated against him because of his disability

are, like the above claim, conclusory and undetailed. Again, “formulaic recitations of the

element of a cause of action” are insufficient. Accordingly, this claim is DISMISSED with

leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint

on or before May 16, 2016. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order (15-3277 RS (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the

previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes

to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be deemed

waived. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 

Case 3:15-cv-03277-RS Document 8 Filed 04/06/16 Page 5 of 6
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

No. C 15-3277 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of

this action without further notice to plaintiff.

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.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03277-RS Document 8 Filed 04/06/16 Page 6 of 6