Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04268/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04268-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED HEBNER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden;

BARRY J. O’NEIL, Associate Warden;

C. PATTON, Captain, 

Defendants. ________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

No. C 05-4268 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed

the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three PBSP officials. By a

separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the following events in his complaint. 

In November 2003, he was in a fight with another inmate on B-Facility Yard at

PBSP. After the fight, he was placed in administrative segregation. He requested that he

be transferred to another prison because he was threatened by other inmates housed on

both the A and B-FacilityYards at PBSP. The request was denied, and plaintiff was

eventually returned to B Yard. In July 2004, two inmates assaulted plaintiff in B Yard. 

He was again placed in administrative segregation, and again requested a transfer to a

different institution rather than be returned to B Yard. The request was denied and, in

Case 3:05-cv-04268-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

November 2004, plaintiff was returned to B Yard. On December 1, 2004, plaintiff filed an

administrative grievance requesting a transfer. On December 15, 2004, plaintiff was

placed in administrative segregation in the Secured Housing Unit, with a recommendation

for an indefinite term. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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 id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings, however, must be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by defendants’ failure to

transfer him out of, and by returning him to, B Yard. 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). In particular, prison officials have a duty to protect

prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. Id. at 833. The failure of prison

officials to protect inmates from attacks by other inmates or from dangerous conditions at the

prison violates the Eighth Amendment, provided two requirements are met: (1) the

deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is,

subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate safety. Id. at 834. 

Plaintiff also claims his First Amendment rights were violated because, according to

Case 3:05-cv-04268-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

plaintiff, he was placed in administrative segregation in retaliation for his filing an

administrative grievance. Retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a constitutional right

is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would

have been proper. See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1977). 

"Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic

elements: (1) an assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, a prisoner suing prison officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege he was

retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action did not

advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline. 

See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). The prisoner also must allege the

defendants' actions caused him some injury. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir.

2000).

Here, although plaintiff sufficiently alleges that reasonable steps to protect him from

harm were not taken, and that he was retaliated against for filing grievances, he does not state

a claim with respect to the defendants named in the complaint. Liability may be imposed on

an individual defendant under section 1983, only if the plaintiff can show the defendant

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844

F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). In that regard, the plaintiff must "set forth specific facts as to

each individual defendant's" deprivation of the plaintiff’s protected rights. Id.; see also

Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding defendant cannot be held liable

based on membership in group; requiring showing of defendant’s individual participation in

unlawful conduct). Here, all plaintiff’s allegations are against the “defendants” collectively;

plaintiff fails to allege what any individual defendant actually did. In order to state a

cognizable claim against any of the defendants herein, plaintiff must allege how each such

defendant personally was involved in the events plaintiff describes and, equally important,

Case 3:05-cv-04268-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

what each such defendant personally did, or failed to do, that caused plaintiff’s alleged

injuries. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to cure this deficiency, if he

can do so in good faith. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within

thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED

COMPLAINT correcting the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff shall include in the

caption both the case number of this action (No. C 05-4268 MMC (PR)), and the phrase

"AMENDED COMPLAINT."

2. The amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not

incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must include in

the amended complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to present. If plaintiff

fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the complaint

will be dismissed.

3. It is plaintiffs’ responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any 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, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04268-MMC Document 7 Filed 03/30/06 Page 4 of 4