Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02594/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02594-6/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

TRAVON LEON FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAMMY FOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02594-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 10

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) where he was 

previously housed. The amended complaint, Dkt. No. 10, is now before the Court for review 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a 

separate order. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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 

 

1 On July 16, 2019, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to comply with 

the Court’s order to either pay the filing fee or file a complete in forma pauperis application. Dkt. 

No. 6. That same day, the Court entered judgment in favor of respondent. Dkt. No. 7. On 

December 26, 2019, the Court granted plaintiff’s request to reopen this case, and vacated the order 

of dismissal and judgment. Dkt, No. 21.

Case 4:19-cv-02594-HSG Document 23 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 4
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

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “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). 

“[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. 

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

B. Amended Complaint

On November 29, 2018, as plaintiff was walking on the yard, he noticed that the yard was 

very quiet and that correctional officials, including named defendant Sergeant Bangar, were

looking at him, indicating that they knew something was going to happen to plaintiff. However, 

none of the correctional officials took any action to protect plaintiff. Soon thereafter, plaintiff was 

attacked by multiple inmates, resulting in a cut on his nose and a swollen area on his upper right 

eye. Although it would only take seconds for the correctional officials to run over and stop the 

attack, the correctional officials allowed the attack to last for almost a minute. Once the attack 

stopped, named defendant Officer Saglado told one of the investigative services unit officials “I 

seen it,” which indicates that the co-defendants had seen the attack. Dkt. No. 10 at 5, 15-21. 

Plaintiff alleges that named defendant SVSP Warden Tammy Foss was also directly responsible 

for the attack because she created an unsafe environment by failing to place cameras on the yard, 

Case 4:19-cv-02594-HSG Document 23 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 4
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

to walk around the yard, to constantly train her officers, and to reprimand officers who were 

accused of misconduct. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Foss knew or should have known that her 

failure to do the above would result in her subordinates committing constitutional violations. Id. 

at 16-17. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ actions constituted a failure to protect, deliberate 

indifference to inmate safety, and cruel and unusual punishment, all in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.

The amended complaint will be DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s allegations 

are too conclusory to state cognizable Section 1983 claims. Plaintiff must present factual 

allegations that link each defendant to the constitutional violation. In this context, plaintiff must 

proffer more than speculation and conclusory statements indicating that each individual defendant 

was aware that plaintiff would be attacked that day and failed to prevent the attack. The current 

allegations – the yard was quiet and correctional officials were looking at him – do not raise a 

right to relief about a speculative level.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows. The amended complaint is 

dismissed with leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified above. Within twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint. The second 

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 

19-02594 HSG (PR) and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If 

using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the 

action to proceed. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, 

Plaintiff must include in his second amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all 

of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaints by reference. In his second 

amended complaint, Plaintiff must specifically identify what each named defendant did or did not 

do with regard to each separate claim. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice. 

Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time 

provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

Case 4:19-cv-02594-HSG Document 23 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 4
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

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint form with a copy of this order 

to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/21/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-02594-HSG Document 23 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 4