Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01566-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES VAN NORT, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1566 KJM P

vs.

KATHLEEN DICKINSON,

Warden, CMF, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $1.20 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

1

Case 2:09-cv-01566-GEB -CKD Document 7 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 6
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

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s

account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain

more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements

of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other

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

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a

claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 

“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.” Iqbal, 129

S. Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be

granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007)(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer

v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff alleges that the steel bunks in the Y-Dorm at California Medical Facility

(CMF) abut electrical outlets, which puts him in danger of being shocked. He also alleges that

not all bunks have outlets near them, so inmates stretch extension cords across the floor and “by

no means is this up to code.” He avers that the wiring “poses a very big hazard to myself and

others” particularly because the electrical panel is not in the dorm, but rather is in the basement,

2

Case 2:09-cv-01566-GEB -CKD Document 7 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 6
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

which would cause a delay in shutting off the power in the case of an emergency. Finally, he

alleges that the dorm “is being used as a dumping ground for all the misfits and violent predators

just released from the hole,” which also puts plaintiff in danger. 

Plaintiff names as defendants Kathleen Dickinson, the Warden; Vicky Flandi,

Associate Warden; Greg Block, Chief Engineer; and Doug Traub, electrician. He alleges that

these defendants are aware of the electrical problems in Y-Dorm and have taken no steps to

correct the problems. He has attached copies of the grievance he pursued, showing that

defendant Traub responded to the grievance by noting that the positioning of the outlets did not

violate requirements, there was no requirement that the breaker box be in the dorm itself and that

he “did not find immediate hazards to inmates and staff.” Docket No. 1 at 19.1 At the first level,

defendant Flandi adopted Traub’s conclusions, noted that properly grounded extension codes in

good condition did not violate any electrical codes and observed that “an on-going monthly

electrical survey will be conducted by Plant Operations. . . .” Id. at 20-21. Defendant Block

interviewed plaintiff in connection with the second level of his grievance, which was ultimately

reviewed by defendant Dickinson, who concluded that potential safety hazards were eliminated

by the installation of GFCI outlets in the restrooms and by the drinking fountain. Id. at 22-23. 

The Supreme Court has recognized that “[i]t is cruel and unusual punishment to

hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions. . . . [A] remedy for unsafe conditions need not

await a tragic event.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (internal quotation, citation

omitted). However, a prison official will not violate an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights

unless “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety,” which

requires that “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 837 (1993). Courts have suggested that the Eighth Amendment might be

1

 The court relies on the page numbers assigned by its CM/ECF system. 

3

Case 2:09-cv-01566-GEB -CKD Document 7 Filed 01/12/10 Page 3 of 6
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

violated if inmates are housed in areas with exposed electrical wiring, but also that there is no

constitutional violation from electrical problems that constitute only “minor hazard[s] . . . easily

avoided.” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. at 34; Morrisette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119, 1123 (7th

Cir. 1995).

In this case, plaintiff has not alleged that the other inmates’ extension cords are

frayed or in poor condition or that the outlets to which these cords have been run are overloaded. 

Moreover, although he alleges there are problems from the placement of the bunks against some

outlets, he has provided documentation showing that the defendants, including the prison

electrician and the prison engineer, did not believe the placement of the bunks or of the breaker

panel created any sort of hazard. Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to allow the court to

draw the inference that these defendants are deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Littlejohn

v. Moody, 381 F.Supp.2d 507, 511 (E.D. Va. 2005) (defendant could not be deemed to know

machine unsafe when plaintiff’s allegations showed he had sent it to be repaired, suggesting it

was safe when returned). Here, plaintiff’s allegations suggest that the other defendants could

rely on defendant Traub’s conclusion that there were no immediate hazards. Id. 

Plaintiff’s claim that Y-Dorm is a dumping ground is too vague to suggest that the

conditions are so unsafe as to create an Eighth Amendment violation or that these defendants

were aware of these conditions. Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. 

Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint, if plaintiff is able to do so while complying with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

4

Case 2:09-cv-01566-GEB -CKD Document 7 Filed 01/12/10 Page 4 of 6
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

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is

granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.20. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

5

Case 2:09-cv-01566-GEB -CKD Document 7 Filed 01/12/10 Page 5 of 6
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

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in an order dismissing this action.

DATED: January 11, 2010. 

2

vann1566.14

6

Case 2:09-cv-01566-GEB -CKD Document 7 Filed 01/12/10 Page 6 of 6