Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05900/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-05900-0/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

OAKLAND DIVISION

VERNON G. CANNON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

SGT. WILSON, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 12-5900 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Napa State Hospital, 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

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. 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." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (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'

Case 4:12-cv-05900-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/04/13 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

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 to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently 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, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1950 (2009). 

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 was transferred to Napa State Hospital and placed in a behavioral

management cell due to his high risk of fire setting, by the jail classification committee. 

Plaintiff was in this cell for approximately four months and was transferred to a different

type of cell as he was doing well. A few days later plaintiff told custody staff that he was

feeling like setting a fire in his cell so defendant Wilson turned off the electrical power to

plaintiff’s cell to prevent him from having an ignition source. The power was off for a day

when defendant Gross asked plaintiff if it would be safe to turn the electricity back on. 

Plaintiff replied that it would be safe and he would tell custody staff if he felt like starting a

fire again. Five days later plaintiff was feeling like setting a fire so he asked Wilson to tell a

mental health official that he would like to talk to them. It is not clear from plaintiff’s

complaint if he told Wilson that he felt like setting a fire. A mental health official came to

plaintiff’s cell and asked if it was an emergency or if it could wait until later. Plaintiff stated it

could wait until later, and the official would return at 7:00 pm on that day. By 8:30 pm the

Case 4:12-cv-05900-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/04/13 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

mental health official had not returned and another custody official told plaintiff that the

mental health official was gone for the day. At 9:30 pm, plaintiff set himself and his cell on

fire causing injuries to himself. 

Plaintiff states he is suing Wilson and Gross in their individual and official capacities. 

However, based on the allegations in the complaint, it is not clear how these defendants

are responsible for plaintiff’s injuries. According to plaintiff, these defendants promptly

responded to plaintiff’s mental health needs whether it was the conditions of his cell or by

seeking help from a medical official. Plaintiff has failed to present allegations showing that

these defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs or in their failure

to protect him from himself. To the extent plaintiff has named these defendants based on

his cell placement, he has not shown that these defendants were responsible for his cell

classification or were even on the jail classification committee. While it is possible the

mental health official could be liable, plaintiff has not named this individual as a defendant

nor has plaintiff provided sufficient allegations to demonstrate liability on her behalf. 

Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than February 4,

2013, 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 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 these claims.

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

Case 4:12-cv-05900-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/04/13 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Cannon5900.dwlta.wpd

Case 4:12-cv-05900-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/04/13 Page 4 of 4