Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03693/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03693-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

JOSE AYON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

T. RICHARDSON, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-3693 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated

at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). He has applied for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

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

Case 3:07-cv-03693-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

Although a prisoner need not wait until he is actually assaulted to state a claim and

obtain injunctive relief, see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845, there is no basis for injunctive relief in

this case because plaintiff alleges he was moved out of the allegedly dangerous situation over

two years ago. 

2

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

Plaintiff alleges that in 2005, defendant Richardson, an SVSP official, transferred him

to the prison’s “C” yard, where another inmate known to officials to be plaintiff’s “enemy”

and a danger to him was also housed. Approximately one week later, after plaintiff

complained, other SVSP officials transferred him away from “C” yard to keep him away

from the other inmate. Plaintiff alleges he was fearful of being attacked by the other inmate

during his time on “C” yard, but he was not in fact attacked. He seeks money damages. 

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of prisoners, including protection from violence at the hands of other

prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). The failure of prison officials to

protect inmates from attacks by other inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison

violates the Eighth Amendment only when 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. Here, plaintiff never suffered any harm from his

transfer to the “C” yard, despite his fears that such harm would come to pass. Indeed, prison

officials promptly transferred him out of “C” yard upon learning of his placement there. In

the absence of any actual harm befalling plaintiff, he did not suffer a sufficiently serious

deprivation to implicate the Eighth Amendment.1

 Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (requiring

physical injury in order to bring claim for mental or emotional injury)

Plaintiff also alleges Richardson moved him to “C” yard in “retaliation” for plaintiff’s

fighting with other inmates. Although retaliation for exercising one’s constitutional rights is

actionable, see Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1977), there is

no constitutional right to fight with other inmates. Consequently, plaintiff does not state a

cognizable retaliation claim. 

Case 3:07-cv-03693-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Leave to amend is not warranted because plaintiff’s allegations establish that no

constitutional violation took place. 

3

Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.2

 In light of this dismissal, the application to proceed in forma pauperis

is DENIED, and no filing fee is due.

The Clerk shall close the file, and terminate Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2007 _____________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03693-MJJ Document 5 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 3