Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02944/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02944-0/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEEWIN L. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. POPOW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02944-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Docket No. 1

I. INTRODUCTION

Keewin L. Walker, a prisoner at the Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. 

II. BACKGROUND

Mr. Walker alleges the following in his complaint: 

Mr. Walker works “with chemicals daily, bio-material occasionally & blood spills often,” 

and therefore must shower before dinner and wash his clothes daily. Docket No. 1 at 3. 

Correctional officer (C/O) Popal intentionally delayed Mr. Walker’s shower which eventually 

became such an issue that supervisors caused a note to be put in the tower stating that Mr. Walker 

was to receive his shower before the evening meal. Sergeant Spencer asked Mr. Walker’s 

supervisor if the workers could be released at 3:45 (apparently to make the showering easier) and 

the supervisor said it could not be done routinely but would be done occasionally depending on 

the workload. The showering issue was eventually resolved so that Mr. Walker would return from 

work, receive his shower and dinner, and be counted without a disruption to normal programming.

Shortly after being made to comply with this set-up, C/O Popal announced to the prisoners 

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 8 Filed 09/20/19 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

in Mr. Walker’s housing unit that “their program would be delayed because he had to shower 

inmate Walker in 223.” Id. at 4. Mr. Walker claims that this was done to attempt to get inmates to 

harm him. C/O Popal disallowed a shower and evening meal for Mr. Walker on October 4, 2018, 

by closing the cell door, although Mr. Walker was allowed to shower later that night. C/O Popal 

yelled that, if Mr. Walker did not return by 3:45 p.m., he would have to wait to shower. Mr. 

Walker complained to a supervisor.

Later, sergeant Spencer told Mr. Walker that he did not like being called a liar and said that 

he was having Mr. Walker moved to another block. When Mr. Walker asked why he was being 

moved, sergeant Spencer said “‘to get your shower.’” Id. at 5. Mr. Walker explained that the 

problem had been resolved and that all that was required was to reinstruct C/O Popal to adhere to 

the program implemented earlier. Nonetheless, Mr. Walker was moved to another building. Mr. 

Walker contends that this was done in retaliation for Mr. Walker’s efforts to have sergeant 

Spencer and C/O Popal “held accountable.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 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. See id. at § 1915A(b). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The Eighth Amendment imposes duties on prison officials to provide prisoners with the 

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

safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). A plaintiff alleging that conditions of 

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 8 Filed 09/20/19 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

confinement amount to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment must 

satisfy a two-prong test. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). First, a plaintiff must satisfy 

an objective test showing that “he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of 

serious harm.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. In determining whether a deprivation of a basic 

necessity is sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, 

courts consider the circumstances, nature, and duration of the deprivation. See Johnson v. Lewis, 

217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000). Second, the plaintiff must show that the prison official 

inflicted the deprivation with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” that is, with “deliberate 

indifference” to the prisoner’s health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The deliberate 

indifference standard requires that the official know of and disregard an excessive risk to prisoner

health or safety. See id. at 837. The official 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. 

See id.

The allegation that Mr. Walker was not allowed to shower before meals do not state a 

plausible claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. The complaint does not adequately plead an 

objectively serious condition because Mr. Walker does not allege on how many occasions he was 

denied a shower or what contaminants were actually on him when he was denied a shower. 

Without this information, it cannot be determined whether this was a sporadic problem or a 

persistent problem, and whether there actual rather than potential contamination problem. The 

complaint also does not adequately plead the subjective element because no facts are alleged 

suggesting that C/O Popal knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety 

when he refused to let Mr. Walker shower before dinner. 

The allegation that C/O Popal announced to the housing unit that the programming was 

delayed so that Mr. Walker could have his shower does not state a plausible claim of deliberate 

indifference to Mr. Walker’s safety. No facts are alleged to suggest that prisoners are so inclined 

toward violence that a mere announcement of an inconvenience, even when it is announced that 

the inconvenience is caused by a specific prisoner, will cause other prisoners to attack the prisoner

who causes the inconvenience. Cf. Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 8 Filed 09/20/19 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

1989) (deliberately spreading rumor that prisoner is snitch may state claim for violation of right to 

be protected from violence while in state custody). Mr. Walker does not allege that he was 

attacked or harmed by any inmate as a result of the announcement. Leave to amend is granted so 

that he may allege additional facts, if he has them, that show an Eighth Amendment violation. 

“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) (footnote omitted). 

The complaint does not state a claim against sergeant Spencer for retaliation in his decision 

to move Mr. Walker to another housing unit. The complaint suggests that there was a legitimate 

correctional goal promoted by the action, i.e., sergeant Spencer said he was moving Mr. Walker to 

another housing unit so that he could get his shower. If showering was necessary before meals 

and could be accommodated more easily in the new housing unit, the move reasonably would 

advance a legitimate correctional goal. The complaint also does not adequately allege an adverse 

action or a chilling effect because Mr. Walker does not allege that there was anything worse about 

the new housing unit than the old housing unit. Leave to amend is granted so that Mr. Walker 

may attempt to allege facts plausibly stating a claim for retaliation.

Finally, Mr. Walker has spelled C/O Popal’s name three different ways, i.e., Popow, Popal, 

and Popall. He is encouraged to find and use the correct name for that person so that service of 

process, if necessary, does not falter due to an inadequately identified defendant. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Leave to amend is 

granted so that Plaintiff may attempt to allege his claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff is 

reminded that the amended complaint must be a complete statement of all of his claims. See 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed 

with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent 

amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will 

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 8 Filed 09/20/19 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

consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”). The amended complaint must be filed no later 

than October 31, 2019, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and 

the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file the amended complaint by 

the deadline will result in dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 8 Filed 09/20/19 Page 5 of 5