Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03136/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03136-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID S. QUAIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR - OFFICE OF INTERNAL 

AFFAIRS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03136-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

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. Id. at 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.” Although 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 

Case 3:19-cv-03136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/06/19 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

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 to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff seeks to make out a variety of claims about the conditions of his incarceration. 

For his medical claims, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth 

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, 

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A 

determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need. 

Id. at 1059. 

A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 

further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of 

an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or 

treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily 

activities, or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a 

prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

For the safety claims, a prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a 

prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take 

reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer at 837. The prison official must not only “be aware of facts 

from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but also

“must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but did 

not actually know, the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the 

risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion 

Case 3:19-cv-03136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/06/19 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to 

a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). In addition, “mere 

delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference.... 

[Prisoner] would have no claim for deliberate medical indifference unless the denial was harmful.” 

Shapely v. Nevada Bd. Of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985).

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to 

guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer, 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; 

Cortez v. Skol, 776 F. 3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th 

Cir. 2005). 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. 

All of plaintiff’s claims are undermined by a lack of factual allegations, let alone facts that 

might make his claims plausible. For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to 

amend. If plaintiff wishes to continue with this case, he must state facts indicating that his 

constitutional rights were violated. For example, for the medical claims, he should describe his 

medical condition, what medication should have been described, and the injuries that resulted 

from the lack of that medication. For the safety claims, plaintiff should identify the defendants as 

specifically as he can and describe what they did to put him in danger. Plaintiff is advised that 

verbal harassment and abuse do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 

125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) overruled in part on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 

F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff is also advised that he must state the allegations and 

facts in the body of the amended complaint. He cannot attach hundreds of pages of exhibits and 

ask the Court to root through them for a claim.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Case 3:19-cv-03136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/06/19 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

2. It is the 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/06/19 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID S. QUAIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR - OFFICE OF INTERNAL 

AFFAIRS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03136-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 6, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

David S. Quair ID: BG0478

aka Diva Moonchild Quair

CSP-CIM

P.O. Box 500

Chino, CA 91708 

Dated: August 6, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-03136-JD Document 11 Filed 08/06/19 Page 5 of 5