Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02487/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02487-2/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

JASON DAVID YONAI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2487 MCE GGH P

vs.

JACK HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the second amended complaint filed February 1,

2007. Named as defendants are Correctional Officers Bowers and Carver. 

Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell in a puddle of water that was outside his

cell. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to hold onto his arms and failed to break his fall in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Inmates alleging Eighth Amendment violations based on unsafe prison conditions

must demonstrate that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to their health or safety by

subjecting them to a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977

(1994). A puddle of water brought to the attention of plaintiff does not constitute a substantial

risk of serious harm. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendants

Case 2:06-cv-02487-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Bowers and Carver is legally frivolous. Accordingly, the court will separately recommend

dismissal of this claim. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to clean up the puddle of water in

retaliation for plaintiff flooding his tier and throwing trash and food out of his cell. 

In order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts which suggest that

retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the “substantial” or “motivating” factor

behind the defendant’s conduct. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th

Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must also plead facts which suggest an absence of legitimate

correctional goals for the conduct he contends was retaliatory. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802,

806 (9th Cir. 1995)(citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985). Verbal

harassment alone is insufficient to state a claim. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139

(9th Cir. 1987). However, even threats of bodily injury are insufficient to state a claim, because a

mere naked threat is not the equivalent of doing the act itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923,

925 (9th Cir. 1987). Mere conclusions of hypothetical retaliation will not suffice, a prisoner

must “allege specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner’s

constitutional rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560, 562 (n. 1) (10th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim fails for two reason. First, plaintiff does not allege

that defendants retaliated against him for engaging in protected conduct. Flooding the tier and

throwing trash and food out of his cell does not constitute protected conduct. Second, plaintiff

has pled no specific facts suggesting that defendants were motivated by retaliation. Rather,

plaintiff’s claim of retaliation is vague and conclusory. Accordingly, the court will separately

recommend dismissal of this claim.

Plaintiff next alleges that while he was in the holding cage, defendant Carver

kicked plaintiff’s injured right hand, causing it to be even more injured. Plaintiff alleges that

defendant Carver acted with “harmful intent.” Plaintiff alleges that defendant Bowers witnessed

defendant Carver kicking plaintiff, but failed to report it to his superiors. The court finds that

Case 2:06-cv-02487-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 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

3

these allegations states colorable Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Carver and

Bowers. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Bowers and Carver.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 2 USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed February 12, 2007.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Three copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed February

12, 2007. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 3/7/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

yon2487.1

Case 2:06-cv-02487-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DAVID YONAI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2487 MCE GGH P

vs.

JACK HARRIS, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

____________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02487-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 4