Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02389/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02389-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 13-2389 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 3/10/16*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RAJESH MANI,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. HANSEN, and

SGT. COX, 

Defendants. /

No. C 13-2389 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

prisoner. Plaintiff’s complaint, which raises the same claims for the fourth time in this Court,

fails to state a claim for relief. The action is DISMISSED. 

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. 

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

Case 3:13-cv-02389-RS Document 28 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 3
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 13-2389 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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 

This is the fourth complaint plaintiff has filed that alleges the following claims. He

alleges that in 2013, J. Hansen, a correctional officer at Soledad State Prison, caused an

automobile accident by falling asleep at the wheel of a vehicle that held plaintiff, who

suffered injuries as a result. He did not inquire about or examine plaintiff’s injuries, but

rather immediately drove to a prison, where plaintiff received medical care. Plaintiff alleges

that such actions violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He names Sergeant Cox as a

defendant based on supervisory liability. 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief. His allegations, despite repeated opportunities

to amend, show at worst that Hansen’s acts (the accident and his lack of concern) constituted 

at most negligence or gross negligence, neither of which is actionable in a section 1983

action. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835–36 & n.4 (1994); Wood v. Housewright,

Case 3:13-cv-02389-RS Document 28 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 3
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 13-2389 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3

900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 

These allegations certainly do not state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation,

which requires plaintiff to show that the defendant acted with “deliberate indifference” and

“knowingly disregarded an excessive risk to his health and safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 837 (1994). After the accident, defendant Hansen drove immediately to a prison

where plaintiff received treatment. Hansen, not a medical professional, likely thought it

better to take plaintiff to receive proper medical care by trained professionals, rather than

delaying such treatment by stopping to examine or inquire after plaintiff. No plausible

reading of these allegations show that defendant was deliberately indifferent or knowingly

disregarded an excessive risk to plaintiff’s safety. These claims are DISMISSED without

leave to amend and without prejudice to plaintiff bringing such claims in state court. His

claims against Sergeant Cox, which are based on supervisory liability, are likewise

DISMISSED without leave to amend and without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment

in favor of defendants, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02389-RS Document 28 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 3