Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04108/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04108-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH W. CANDLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.S. EVANS, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-4108 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden M.S. Evans (“Evans”), Captain J.W. Lewis

(“Lewis”), Sergeant B. O’Kane (“O’Kane”), Lieutenant J. Hughes (“Hughes”),

Correctional Officer W. Wilson (“Wilson”), Correctional Officer J.J. McAnelly

(“McAnelly”), Nurse M. Aaya (“Aaya”), and Nurse Zingler (“Zingler”), all officials or

employees of Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). By separate order filed concurrently

herewith, he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/31/06 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

1

Plaintiff alleges that his cell vent was connected to Hall’s cell vent. 

2

All other events referenced above occurred at unspecified times.

2

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,

however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

699 (9th Cir. 1988). 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. Exposure to Chemical Spray

The allegations pertaining to this claim are as follows. On January 1, 2005,

defendant O’Kane transferred plaintiff to the cell next door to an inmate named “Hall.” 

On February 3, 2005, defendant Wilson ordered Hall to remove paper that Hall had used

to cover his windows. When Hall refused, Wilson informed Hall that he would be

forcibly extracted from the cell. Plaintiff asked Wilson if he could be moved because

plaintiff had asthma and did not want to be exposed to the chemical spray that would be

used in the extraction of Hall.1

 Wilson told plaintiff that “it would be quick,” and left. 

O’Kane then came to Hall’s cell and ordered Hall to remove the window covering. 

Plaintiff asked O’Kane if he could be moved because of his asthma, but O’Kane denied

the request. O’Kane, Wilson, Lewis, and Hughes thereafter extracted Hall from his cell

using chemical spray. The spray blew into plaintiff’s cell, causing plaintiff to cough,

vomit, and feel burning in his eyes. Plaintiff remained under his bed to avoid the spray;

approximately one hour later, Wilson returned to clean up the cell. Plaintiff asked Wilson

to get him medical attention, and also to turn off one of the blowers to allow plaintiff

some fresh air. Wilson refused. At approximately 6:30 p.m., nurses Zingler and Aaya

visited plaintiff to give him his psychiatric medication.2

 He requested treatment for the

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/31/06 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

3

burning in his throat and eyes, and for his stomach and head pain, but his requests were

denied.

Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s safety or serious medical needs violates the

Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (addressing safety conditions in prison); Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (addressing medical needs). A determination of an

Eighth Amendment violation, involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of

the dangerous condition or medical need, and whether the prison official has been

deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s needs. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. An Eighth

Amendment claimant need not show that a prison official acted or failed to act believing

that harm actually would befall an inmate; it is enough that the official acted or failed to

act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. See id. at 842; see also

Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1439-40 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding bystander-inmate

who was injured when guards allegedly used excessive force on another inmate need not

show guards intended to harm bystander-inmate). Allegations in a pro se complaint

sufficient to raise an inference that the named prison officials acted with deliberate

indifference, i.e, that they knew the plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm and

disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it, states a cognizable

claim. See Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040-42 (9th Cir. 2005).

Liberally construed, the allegations that defendants refused to move plaintiff prior

to using the pepper spray, and then failed to provide him with medical care once he was

exposed, state a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment.

2. Legal Books

Plaintiff alleges that in April 2005, defendant McAnelly took two legal practice

guide books from plaintiff’s cell and never returned them. According to plaintiff, he

needed these books for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus he was pursuing at the time. 

Plaintiff alleges that without these books, he cannot effectively pursue his habeas petition.

Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey,

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/31/06 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

4

518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a

claim for any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove there

was an inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him actual injury. See

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-55. To prove actual injury, the prisoner must show the

inadequacy in the prison's program hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim

concerning his conviction or conditions of confinement. See id. at 354-55.

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations state a cognizable claim that McAnelly

violated his right of access to the courts by confiscating his legal practice guide books.

3. Failure to Protect

Plaintiff claims the SVSP Warden has failed to protect him from harmful actions

by SVSP officials. The failure of prison officials to protect inmates from attacks 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 safety. Farmer,

511 U.S. at 834. 

Plaintiff alleges he was involved in an altercation with SVSP officials in October

2003, and that SVSP officials have denied him food, hurt him with restraints, threatened

and used unnecessary physical force, failed to deliver his mail, and falsified reports as to

rules violations. Although plaintiff may have a cognizable claim against SVSP officials

for failing to protect him from dangerous prison conditions, his allegations in the

complaint are too conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. Conclusory allegations

do not suffice to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the plaintiff must

instead "set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's" alleged deprivation of

his protected rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, plaintiff

does not specify which SVSP officials took the above-referenced harmful actions against

him, or when or under what circumstances such actions were taken. Plaintiff will be

given leave to state this claim with more specific facts concerning the role and conduct of

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/31/06 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

3

Plaintiff also alleges he has made “numerous” written requests to the Warden that he

be transferred to another institution, but that these requests have been denied. Prisoners have

no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). Accordingly,

plaintiff does not have a cognizable claim for relief against any SVSP official based solely on

such official’s failure to transfer him to another institution.

5

each individual SVSP official, if he can do so in good faith.3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within

thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED

COMPLAINT correcting the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff shall include in the

caption both the case number of this action (No. C 05-4108 MMC (PR)), and the phrase

"AMENDED COMPLAINT."

2. The amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not

incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must include

in the amended complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to present. If

plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the

third claim for relief, described above, will be dismissed with prejudice, and this

action will only proceed based on plaintiff’s other two claims.

3. It is plaintiffs’ responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep

the Court informed of any 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, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

4. Plaintiff has filed a request for appointment of counsel. There is no

constitutional right to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court

has the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma

pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). To date, plaintiff has been able to present his claims,

which do not appear to be particularly complex, in an adequate manner, and there are no

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/31/06 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

6

exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at this time. Should the

circumstances of the case materially change, the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s request

sua sponte. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 3

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 31, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04108-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/31/06 Page 6 of 6