Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00693/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00693-5/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN GOODMAN, /

/

Plaintiff, /

/

v. /

/

A. CALDERON, et al., /

/

Defendants. /

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00693-OWW-GSA (PC) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM

 

 

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE IN 30 DAYS

I. FINDINGS

A. Procedural History

Kevin Goodman (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed his original

complaint. (Doc. 1.) On October 2, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s

complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted and providing direction

for Plaintiff’s use in filing an amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 12.)

B. Screening Requirement

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.

Case 1:05-cv-00693-OWW -GSA Document 21 Filed 10/02/08 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

2

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or

appeal ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

C. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is currently released on parole. Plaintiff was imprisoned at California

Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, where the acts he complains of occurred. Plaintiff names

Defendants: Warden A. Calderon; Director of the California Department of Corrections J.

Woodford; Correctional Sergeant B. Teesdale; and Correctional Officer Theophil. Plaintiff seeks

monetary damages.

Plaintiff alleges that on July 27, 2003, Plaintiff was brutally attacked by inmate Boyd,

Plaintiff’s cell mate, in his cell at Tehachapi. Plaintiff states that inmate Boyd should not have

been housed in the same cell as Plaintiff because Boyd is a mental health patient. 

 Plaintiff’s amended complaint suffers from a number of deficiencies which now require

dismissal with prejudice.

D. Plaintiff’s Claims

1. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Case 1:05-cv-00693-OWW -GSA Document 21 Filed 10/02/08 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

3

Constitution ... shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff’s

federal rights.

Plaintiff fails to link any factual allegations to any of the named defendants. Plaintiff thus

fails to state a cognizable claim against any of the defendants.

2. Safety- Failure to Protect

“The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 832 (1994) (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993)). Prison officials have a

duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d

1237, 1250-51 (9th Cir. 1982); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. To establish a violation of this duty, the

prisoner must establish that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to

the inmates’s safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The question under the Eighth Amendment is

whether prison officials, acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently

substantial ‘risk of serious damage to his future health ... .’” Id. at 843 (citing Helling v.

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). The Supreme Court has explained that “deliberate

indifference entails something more than mere negligence ... [but] something less than acts or

omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge that harm will result.”

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. The Court defined this “deliberate indifference” standard as equal to

Case 1:05-cv-00693-OWW -GSA Document 21 Filed 10/02/08 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

4

“recklessness,” in which “a person disregards a risk of harm of which he is aware.” Id. at 836-37. 

The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong. First, the

alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Id. at 834. Second,

subjectively, the prison official must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health

or safety.” Id. at 837.

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to give rise to any claims for relief against the

named defendants because he has failed to link any of the named defendants with specific

conduct which he alleges violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s broad allegations of 

negligence and deliberate indifference are not sufficient to put each defendant on notice of the act

or omissions which Plaintiff alleges violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff thus fails to assert

a cognizable claim against any of the defendants.

II. RECOMMENDATION 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any of the named

defendants. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this entire action be dismissed

with prejudice. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 2, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00693-OWW -GSA Document 21 Filed 10/02/08 Page 4 of 4