Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01276-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MONTUE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1276 MCE GGH P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the court may still screen the

complaint:

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–

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue or;

(B) the action or appeal–

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Plaintiff first alleges that in September 2005 he was attacked by inmate Pruitt and

suffered injuries. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by

failing to protect him from inmate Pruitt. 

Case 2:06-cv-01276-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 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

2

“‘[P]rison officials have a duty...to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of

other prisoners.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976 (1994). “[A]

prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met. First, the

deprivation alleged must be, objectively, ‘sufficiently serious’ ...For a claim (like the one here)

based on a failure to prevent harm, the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions

posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 834, 114 S.Ct. at 1977. Second, “[t]o violate

the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a prison officials must have a ‘sufficiently culpable

state of mind’ ... [T]hat state of mind is one of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or

safety.” Id. The prison official will be liable only if “the official knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health and safety; the officials must both be aware of facts from which

the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw

the inference.” Id. at 837, 114 S.Ct. at 1979.

Plaintiff alleges that he had previously informed defendants Pittigrew, Dunlop,

Borros, Schwartz and Woodford that inmate Pruitt had been disrespectful toward him. Plaintiff

had also informed defendants that inmate Pruitt had gotten into physical altercations with

inmates on previous occasions and had caused problems in the dorm.

Plaintiff has pled no facts suggesting that defendants inferred that inmate Pruitt

posed a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff based on the information he provided to them. In any

event, the court does not find that defendants were aware of facts from which such an inference

could have been drawn. That inmate Pruitt had “disrespected” plaintiff and been involved in

altercations with other inmates did not mean that he posed a substantial risk of harm to plaintiff. 

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant refused to provide him with mosquito repellant

containing DEET, which he needed in order to prevent being infected with West Nile Virus. 

Plaintiff does not allege that he actually contracted West Nile Virus.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01276-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 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

3

To establish standing to raise a constitutional claim, plaintiff must suffer an

“injury in fact”–a “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent” harm to a legally

protectable interest. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992).

Plaintiff has no standing because he has not contracted West Nile Virus. Moreover, that plaintiff

might someday contract West Nile Virus does not demonstrate that the harm is imminent. 

Rather, plaintiff’s chances of contracting West Nile Virus are speculative. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s claim that defendant violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to provide him with

mosquito repellant containing DEET is dismissed. 

The complaint contains two additional claims. Plaintiff alleges that the prison

underwent seismic retrofitting which caused him to endure excessive noise. As a result of being

subject to excessive noise, plaintiff suffered a hearing loss and now wears hearing aids. Plaintiff

also alleges that defendants refused to provide him with pain treatment recommended by

orthopedist specialists. The court will not dismiss these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2).

Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff does not

file an amended complaint, the court will recommend dismissal the two claims found not

colorable above and order service of the claims regarding hearing loss and pain treatment. If

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the court will issue further orders.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims regarding

mosquito repellant and failure to protect are dismissed; plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an

amended complaint; following that time, the court will issue further orders. 

DATED: 11/1/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

mon1276.ord

Case 2:06-cv-01276-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 3