Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01935/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01935-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv1935-Dismiss FAC.wpd -1- 10cv1935 MMA (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILIP DANNY CRAIGIE,

CDCR #v-00757, Civil No. 10cv1935 MMA (WMc)

Plaintiff, ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b)

vs.

GOMEZ; HIA; McGEE;

GARZA; JUAREZ; ROBERTS;

SPENCE, 

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On September 15, 2010, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility (“Donovan”) located in San Diego, California and proceeding

pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed

a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On December

29, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his

Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). See Dec. 29, 2010 Order at 4-5. 

Case 3:10-cv-01935-MMA-WMC Document 7 Filed 04/13/11 Page 1 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv1935-Dismiss FAC.wpd -2- 10cv1935 MMA (WMc)

Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On January 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

II. Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)

A. Standard of Review

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)

obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like

Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.”

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte

dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails

to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A.

As currently pleaded, it is clear, once again, that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

fails to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 imposes two essential

proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed

the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or

immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

As he did in his original Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was provided a cell that was

“contaminated” and Defendants refused to provide him with toilet paper for one day. (See FAC

at 5-9.) Plaintiff claims violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment

and violations of the Eighth Amendment based on the same set of facts. The Supreme Court has

indicated that when a broad due process violation is alleged, but a more specific amendment

“provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection” against a particular sort of

government behavior, “that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due

process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273

(1994) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)); Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868,

Case 3:10-cv-01935-MMA-WMC Document 7 Filed 04/13/11 Page 2 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv1935-Dismiss FAC.wpd -3- 10cv1935 MMA (WMc)

874 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Court will analyze Plaintiff’s condition of confinement

claims under the Eighth Amendment standard set forth below. The Eighth Amendment, which

prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” imposes a duty on prison officials to provide humane

conditions of confinement and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the

inmates. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1993). However, every injury suffered by

an inmate does not necessarily translate into constitutional liability for prison officials. 

Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir. 1996); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349

(1981) (noting that the U.S. Constitution “does not mandate comfortable prisons.”). 

Thus, to assert an Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of humane conditions of

confinement, however, a prisoner must satisfy two requirements: one objective and one

subjective. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087

(9th Cir. 1994). Under the objective requirement, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to

show that “a prison official’s acts or omissions ... result[ed] in the denial of the ‘minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at

347). This objective component is satisfied so long as the institution “furnishes sentenced

prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.”

Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 534; Wright v.

Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981). The subjective requirement, relating to the

defendant’s state of mind, requires that the plaintiff allege facts sufficient to show “deliberate

indifference.” Allen, 48 F.3d at 1087. 

In addition, when considering the conditions of confinement, the court should also

consider the amount of time to which the prisoner was subjected to the condition. See Hutto v.

Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005);

Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1258. Here, Plaintiff claims to have been exposed to unsanitary

conditions in his cell and denied toilet paper for one day. (See FAC at 5-9.) While the

conditions may be less than comfortable, Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that he was

deprived the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” in violation of his Eighth

Amendment rights. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that he suffered

Case 3:10-cv-01935-MMA-WMC Document 7 Filed 04/13/11 Page 3 of 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\10cv1935-Dismiss FAC.wpd -4- 10cv1935 MMA (WMc)

any injury as a result of the conditions alleged in his First Amended Complaint. While Plaintiff

alleges injuries in the form of “grave and cross mental anguish,” he has failed to allege any

physical injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Thus, Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claims

are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 6] is DISMISSED without prejudice

for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b). Because the Court finds amendment of Plaintiff’s § 1983

claims would be futile at this time, leave to amend is DENIED. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

Co., 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (denial of a leave to amend is not an abuse of discretion

where further amendment would be futile); see also Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms,

997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Since plaintiff has not, and cannot, state a claim 

containing an arguable basis in law, this action should be dismissed without leave to amend; any

amendment would be futile.”) (citing Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th Cir. 1996)).

2) IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that an IFP appeal from this Order would not be

taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge v. United States, 369

U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977) (indigent appellant

is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: April 13, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01935-MMA-WMC Document 7 Filed 04/13/11 Page 4 of 4