Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01025-0/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS BREWER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R. BRAVO, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-01025-AWI-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Curtis Brewer (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on 

June 25, 2012, is currently before the Court for screening.

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

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

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

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/08/13 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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); 

Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility 

that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short 

of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the Lancaster State Prison. The events complained about 

allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows: “On July 18, 2010, c/o R. Bravo allowed I/M’s Smith 

#F24249 and Board #F16687 out of their cell to assault me, while on lockdown performing my 

then Men’s Advisory Counsel [sic] Representative (“MAC-REP”) building functions, while a 

substantial risk of serious harm existed, with this knowledge thereof and I was injured in the 

attack.” (ECF No. 1, p. 3.) 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 

III. Deficiencies of the Complaint

Due to its abbreviated and conclusory nature, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with 

leave to amend. To assist Plaintiff in amending his complaint, Plaintiff is provided with the 

applicable pleading and legal standards. 

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/08/13 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

As noted above, detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 

not. Id; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Plaintiff’s complaint is conclusory and lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a 

cognizable claim. Although Rule 8 demands a short and plain statement, Plaintiff’s complaint 

must include enough facts to support a claim.

B. Failure to Protect 

Plaintiff appears to allege a claim against Correctional Officer Bravo for failure to protect 

him from an assault by other inmates. Prison officials are required “to take reasonable steps to 

protect inmates from physical abuse.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. O’Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995)). To 

state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with 

deliberate indifference. Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations 

omitted). Deliberate indifference requires a showing that “prison officials were aware of a 

“substantial risk of serious harm” to an inmate’s health or safety and that there was no 

“reasonable justification for the deprivation, in spite of that risk.” Id. (quoting Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979, 1982 (1994)). Additionally, an officer 

can only be held liable for failing to intercede if he had a realistic opportunity to intercede and 

failed to do so. Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289-90 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Bravo is based on conclusory statements. 

Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendant Bravo was aware that 

Plaintiff was at a substantial risk of serious harm from an assault by other inmates or that he had 

realistic opportunity to intercede. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a cognizable claim for failure 

to protect. As discussed below, Plaintiff will be given leave to cure this deficiency. 

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/08/13 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

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted 

under section 1983. However, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an 

amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff also must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state 

a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff 

should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of 

adding new, unrelated claims. 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to Local Rule 220, the amended complaint must

be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the 

case. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” 

refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to file a 

first amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this action 

for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01025-BAM Document 6 Filed 10/08/13 Page 4 of 4