Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01025-2/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS BREWER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. BRAVO, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-01025-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Curtis Brewer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 19, 2013, the 

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s second 

amended complaint, filed on December 26, 2013, is currently before the Court for screening. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 10 Filed 12/31/13 Page 1 of 4
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

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); 

Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility 

that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short 

of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the Lancaster State Prison. The events complained about 

allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

PLAINTIFF CONTAINS THAT PRE CALIFORNIA RULES AND 

REGULATION OF OPERATION MANUAL SECT. 51040, 6, 501040.6, AND 

51040.6, 2 PROVES THAT VERY STAFF MEMBER ASSIGNED TO ANY 

POST IS MADE TO SIGN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT [SIC] FORM MAKING 

SURE THAT HE OR SHE HAS BEEN INFORMED OF ALL ACTIVITIES 

CONCERNING ALL MOVEMENT STATUS, SECURITY THREAT AND 

CONCERNS FURTHER DUE THE ESCALATING ACTIONS OF VIOLENCE 

AND THE CONVERSION FROM A GENERAL POPULATION FACILITY TO 

A SENSITIVE NEEDS FACILITY DURING AN ACTIVE LOCK DOWN 

BETWEEN TWO GROUPS, EG, BLOODS AND CRIPS STREET GANGS. 

ALONG WITH THIS INFORMATION IS A MEMORANDUM FURTHER 

OUTLINING EACH INMATES IDENTIFIED TO BE EITHER A 

DOCUMENTED OR ASSOCIATED AND EVEN HOUSED WITH EITHER A 

BLOOD OR CRIP. 

THESE DOCUMETNS ARE PLACED IN EVERY ASSIGNED POST EACH 

SHIFT WHICH THEY MUST READ AND COMPREHEND EACH 

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 10 Filed 12/31/13 Page 2 of 4
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

MEMORANDUM WHEN THEY TAKE PASSION [SIC] OF THEIR POST 

PER WATCH. 

IF C/O BRAVO HAD FOLLOWED HIS DOCUMENTED POST ORDER TO 

THE LETTER PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ASSAULTED 

BECAUSE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE 

SUBSTANTUAL [SIC] RISK OF VIOLENCE IF ANY INTERACTION 

BETWEEN ANY INMATE BELONGING OR HOUSED WITH THE 

DISRUPTIVE GROUP. BY C/O BRAVO WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY 

OPENING INMATES SMITH AND INMATES BOARDS CELL DOOR 

FULLY AWARE THAT PLAINTIFF BREWER (AKA BHRIS) IS EITHER A 

BLOOD OR HOUSED WITH BLOOD OR ASSOCIATED. FURTHER C/O 

BRAVO KNEW DUE TO HIS POST ORDERS WHICH HE SIGNED THAT 

EITHER INMATE SMITH OR INMMATE [SIC] BOARD WERE 

DOCUMENTED CRIPS PROVING THAT HE HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF

A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF VIOLENCE DUE TO ANY INTERACTION OF 

ANY PERSON BELONGING TO EITHER DISRUPTIVE GROUP. 

Plaintiff seeks an award of damages. 

III. Discussion

At best, Plaintiff’s allegations are disjointed and conclusory. Plaintiff appears to allege a 

claim against Correctional Officer Bravo for failure to protect him from an assault. Prison 

officials are required “to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse.” Hoptowit 

v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982) (abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. 

O’Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995)). To state a claim under the Eighth 

Amendment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference. 

Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Deliberate 

indifference requires a showing that “prison officials were aware of a ‘substantial risk of serious 

harm’ to an inmate’s health or safety” and that there was no “reasonable justification for the 

deprivation, in spite of that risk.” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844, 114 

S. Ct. 1970, 1979, 1982 (1994)). 

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendant Bravo was 

aware that Plaintiff was at a substantial risk of serious harm from an assault. That Defendant 

Bravo may have allowed inmates out of their cells, including Plaintiff, is not sufficient to 

establish a failure to protect. Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Bravo was aware that 

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 10 Filed 12/31/13 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff was at risk of assault from Inmates Smith or Board. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a 

cognizable claim for failure to protect. Despite being provided with the relevant legal standard 

and multiple opportunities to amend his complaint, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the 

identified deficiencies. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief 

may be granted under section 1983. Despite being provided the relevant legal standards and 

multiple opportunities to amend, Plaintiff has been unable to state a cognizable claim and further 

leave to amend will not be granted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for 

failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 10 Filed 12/31/13 Page 4 of 4