Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01604-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN HUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISAAC OLIVARES,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01604-JST 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate 

order. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 

Case 3:19-cv-01604-JST Document 12 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 4
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 California

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[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. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

B. Complaint

According to the complaint, on the morning of June 15, 2018, Defendant Olivares drove 

the food-delivery truck to the D-Yard chow hall. Defendant Olivares was responsible for 

unloading the food cart and other food supplies. At that time, Plaintiff held a position as a kitchen 

worker and was responsible for carrying the food items into the kitchen. After the truck arrived, 

Plaintiff stood at the rear of the truck to carry out his responsibilities. Because Defendant Olivares 

was flirting with a female kitchen staff, he did not pay attention as he lowered the truck lift gate. 

Defendant Olivares lowered the gate all the way to the ground and directly onto Plaintiff’s foot, 

completely crushing Plaintiff’s foot. When Defendant Olivares noticed what had happened, he 

smiled and stated, “My bad, I should have been paying attention.” As a result of the injury, 

Plaintiff’s mobility has been destroyed, Plaintiff suffered a foot fracture, and Plaintiff lost his 

kitchen job. ECF No. 1 at 3–4.

C. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Olivares’ actions violated the Eighth Amendment. The 

Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety 

of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The failure of prison officials to 

protect inmates 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 

Case 3:19-cv-01604-JST Document 12 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 4
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 California

prison official is, subjectively, deliberately 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. Neither 

negligence nor gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 

835–36 & n.4 (1994); id. at 838 (“[a prison] official’s failure to alleviate a significant risk that he 

should have perceived but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot under our cases be 

condemned as the infliction of punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment). Plaintiff’s 

allegation that Defendant Olivares was careless and failed to pay attention may state a cause of 

action for negligence, but does not state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Accordingly, the 

complaint will be DISMISSED with leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 

(9th Cir. 2000) (“a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 

allegation of other facts”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend “should be granted more liberally to 

pro se plaintiffs”) (citation omitted).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to address the 

deficiency identified above if he can do so in good faith. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the 

date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include 

the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 19-01604 HSG (PR) and the 

words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff 

must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Because an amended 

complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in his amended 

complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material 

from the prior complaint by reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time 

provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

Case 3:19-cv-01604-JST Document 12 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 4
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 California

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this order to 

Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2019

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01604-JST Document 12 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 4