Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01612/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01612-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ALLEN BACON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR SAN QUENTIN PSYCH STAFF, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-01612-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has 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 claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

Case 4:19-cv-01612-PJH Document 9 Filed 04/16/19 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 Californi

a

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 has 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 well-pleaded 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 states that a medical technician attempted to kill him. 

The treatment a convicted prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under 

which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. 

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). "After incarceration, only the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the 

Eighth Amendment." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (ellipsis in original) 

(internal quotation and citation omitted). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment 

when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, 

sufficiently serious, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 824, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 

501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable 

state of mind, i.e., the offending conduct was wanton, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297); 

LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Case 4:19-cv-01612-PJH Document 9 Filed 04/16/19 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 Californi

a

Plaintiff states that while insulin was being distributed he informed the medical 

technician that his glucose test results were 149 and the technician responded if plaintiff 

would like 36 units of insulin, which plaintiff states would be a lethal dose. Plaintiff 

responded that would be a nasty way to go and the technician laughed. Plaintiff alleges 

that this was attempted murder, though he suffered no injury. These allegations fail to 

demonstrate any constitutional violation. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend 

and plaintiff will be provided one opportunity to present a cognizable claim. 

 CONCLUSION 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the 

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than May 15, 

2019, 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 file an 

amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. 

2. It is the 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 headed 

“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 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 16, 2019 

 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-01612-PJH Document 9 Filed 04/16/19 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ALLEN BACON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR SAN QUENTIN PSYCH STAFF, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-01612-PJH 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on April 16, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Robert Allen Bacon ID: P41600

San Quentin State Prison 

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: April 16, 2019 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

Case 4:19-cv-01612-PJH Document 9 Filed 04/16/19 Page 4 of 4