Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_19-cv-08041/USCOURTS-cand-1_19-cv-08041-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

DAMESHLO A. GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JIM ROBERTSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-08041-RMI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He 

has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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 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 

Case 1:19-cv-08041-RMI Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 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 California

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 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 wellpleaded 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 he fell out of his top bunk injuring himself.

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit 

inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a prisoner 

receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the 

Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). In its prohibition of “cruel 

and unusual punishment,” the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may 

not, for example, use excessive force against prisoners. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 

(1992). The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide all prisoners 

with the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and 

personal safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment 

when two requirements are met. First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently 

serious. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the 

prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297).

Case 1:19-cv-08041-RMI Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 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 California

Neither negligence nor gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference. See Farmer

at 835-37 & n.4. A prison official cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying 

an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the standard for criminal recklessness is met, 

i.e., the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See 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 1:19-cv-08041-RMI Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 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 California

Plaintiff states that he notified the administration of Pelican Bay State Prison of the 

dangers and unsafe conditions of having to do climb up and down from the top bunk without any 

bars or safety rails. He submitted forms requesting a wall ladder or step to the warden and the 

administration but received no response. Several weeks later he fell while climbing off the top 

bunk and injured his hand.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information. The only 

defendant is the warden, but Plaintiff has not demonstrated the warden’s personal involvement in 

the constitutional deprivation. The fact that Plaintiff submitted a form to the warden, without 

more, is insufficient. He must show that the warden was deliberately indifferent to his safety. In an 

amended complaint, Plaintiff may wish to add defendants who denied his requests for the ladder 

or step. Additionally, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the failure to provide a ladder or step 

violated the Eighth Amendment. In one of his exhibits, a prison official states that ladders or steps 

cannot be provided, however, Plaintiff may request a lower bunk. Compl. at 34. Plaintiff should 

indicate if he requested a lower bunk or provide more allegations about how the denial of the 

ladder or step was sufficiently serious and that the named defendants had a culpable state of mind. 

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set 

forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this 

order is filed 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 amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of 

this case.

It is 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 titled “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 

Case 1:19-cv-08041-RMI Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 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 California

41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:19-cv-08041-RMI Document 5 Filed 01/21/20 Page 5 of 5