Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06147/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06147-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUPERB O. NWANDU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

 CORRECTIONS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6147 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION (Doc. 5.) 

 Superb O. Nwandu (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on August 5, 2004, naming the California Department of Corrections, the Warden of

Wasco State Prison, and Correctional Officer Figueroa as Defendants. 

On November 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 27, 2005. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 12/07/06 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

27

28

2

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“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 . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he fell on a wet floor caused by the

constant flooding of a water hydrant that had been negligently left on. Plaintiff states that he

asked Defendant FIgueroa to move him to another cell to avoid a repeat incident and his request

was denied. Plaintiff states that the following day when he went for his regularly scheduled

medication, he slipped and fell again twisting his back and thigh muscle seriously. Plaintiff

states that he has requested a transfer to an adequate medical facility from Wasco but his request

has been denied and his medical needs not considered. Plaintiff is requesting that he be granted

monetary damages, time off of his sentence so he can pursue treatment, and continued medical

care after he is released from the penal system. 

C. ANALYSIS

1. Institutional Transfer

As in the previous Complaint, Plaintiff states that his request to be transferred to another

cell and another institution were denied. However, prisoners have no constitutional right to

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 12/07/06 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

27

28

3

incarceration in a particular institution. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532

(1976). Thus, this allegation does not state a cognizable claim for relief. 

2. Negligence

A public employee is liable for injury to a prisoner “proximately caused by his negligent

or wrongful act or omission.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 844.6(d) (West 2006). “In order to establish

negligence under California law, a plaintiff must establish four required elements: (1) duty; (2)

breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1203 (9th Cir.

2003). 

In this case, although Plaintiff uses the term “negligent,” he fails to state sufficient facts

establishing a cognizable claim of Negligence. Even had Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts, a

violation of state tort law, such as negligence, is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under

§ 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, there must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or

statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). As such, plaintiff’s claim must be

dismissed. Plaintiff was made aware of this in the first Order dismissing with leave to amend. 

Given Plaintiff’s amendment and the facts alleged, the Complaint fails to allege a federal

constitutional violation and must be dismissed. 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under section 1983 even after having been given the opportunity to cure the defects outlined in

his Complaint. Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of

being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9 Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the th

Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety. The Court also recommends

that all pending Motions be DENIED as moot. 

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with a copy

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 12/07/06 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

27

28

4

of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. th

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 7 Filed 12/07/06 Page 4 of 4