Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04108/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04108-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GUSTAVO COLIN LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN PRISON, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-04108-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff 

has filed an amended complaint. 

DISCUSSION 

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 

Case 4:19-cv-04108-PJH Document 12 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

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' 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, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (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). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to protect him from an assault by another 

inmate. 

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to 

guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In particular, 

prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other 

prisoners. Id. at 833; Cortez v. Skol, 776 F. 3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015); Hearns v. 

Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect 

inmates from attacks by other inmates or 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 

Case 4:19-cv-04108-PJH Document 12 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

indifferent to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison official is 

deliberately indifferent if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or 

safety by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837. 

“In a § 1983 or a Bivens action – where masters do not answer for the torts of their 

servants – the term ‘supervisory liability’ is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, each 

Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own 

misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 (finding under Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544, and Rule 8 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that complainant-detainee in a Bivens action 

failed to plead sufficient facts “plausibly showing” that top federal officials “purposely 

adopted a policy of classifying post-September-11 detainees as ‘of high interest’ because 

of their race, religion, or national origin” over more likely and non-discriminatory 

explanations). 

A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal 

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between 

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 

678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). Even if a supervisory official is not directly 

involved in the allegedly unconstitutional conduct, “[a] supervisor can be liable in this 

individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or 

control of his subordinates; for his acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation; or for 

conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.” Starr v. 

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The claim that a 

supervisory official “knew of unconstitutional conditions and ‘culpable actions of his 

subordinates’ but failed to act amounts to ‘acquiescence in the unconstitutional conduct 

of his subordinates’ and is ‘sufficient to state a claim of supervisory liability.’” Keates v. 

Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208) (finding that 

conclusory allegations that supervisor promulgated unconstitutional policies and 

procedures which authorized unconstitutional conduct of subordinates do not suffice to 

state a claim of supervisory liability). 

Case 4:19-cv-04108-PJH Document 12 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Plaintiff argues that he was mistakenly released from federal custody and 

transferred to San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) while he awaited deportation by federal 

authorities. At SQSP plaintiff was walking to his housing unit when a riot broke out and 

he was assaulted by an unknown individual. He states he was rendered unconscious 

and suffered serious injuries. While he was recovering from his injuries he was deported 

to Mexico. It appears this incident occurred sometime between 2013 and 2015. 

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend to provide more 

information. The only defendants were the Warden of SQSP, the Sheriff of Santa Clara 

County and the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Yet, plaintiff failed to 

describe the actions of any defendant or any individual. To state an Eighth Amendment 

violation, plaintiff must identify specific defendants and describe how they were 

deliberately indifferent to his safety. Plaintiff was informed that simply stating that there 

was a riot and he was injured was insufficient. He must present allegations that 

defendants knew of and disregarded a risk to his safety and failed to take reasonable 

steps to protect him. Also, that some of these defendants are supervisors was 

insufficient. He must describe either personal involvement in the constitutional 

deprivation or a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct 

and the constitutional violation. 

Plaintiff has failed to address these deficiencies in the amended complaint and 

presents the same general allegations regarding the failure to protect claim. Plaintiff also 

argues that a new defendant doctor failed to properly treat him, yet he does not provide 

specific allegations concerning his injuries and how the doctor was deliberately indifferent 

to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff must present more information how the doctor 

allowing him to be released from custody for deportation violated his constitutional rights 

with respect to his injuries. The amended complaint is dismissed, and plaintiff will be 

provided one final opportunity to amend and provide more information to state cognizable 

claims. 

Case 4:19-cv-04108-PJH Document 12 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 5
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

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

with the standards set forth above. The second amended complaint must be filed no 

later than February 18, 2020, 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 file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. 

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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 15, 2020 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:19-cv-04108-PJH Document 12 Filed 01/15/20 Page 5 of 5