Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00706-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT AUSTIN JOHNSON, No. 2:13-cv-0706-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER, et al.

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. The court issued an order to

show cause requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure

to state a claim. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s response to the court’s order.

In the order to show cause, the court discussed the claims raised in plaintiff’s

complaint, and found they failed to state a claim based on the allegations that the defendants

failed to protect plaintiff from the possibility of harm. The claim, a violation of plaintiff’s Eighth

Amendment rights, was based on the defendants’ decision to transfer plaintiff to the same facility

as another inmate with whom plaintiff had an altercation with, thus placing him in danger. The

1

Case 2:13-cv-00706-CMK Document 15 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 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

court explained that:

prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect

inmates from physical abuse. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237,

1250-51 (9th Cir. 1982); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. Liability exists

only when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the prisoner

was incarcerated under conditions presenting a substantial risk of

serious harm; and (2) subjectively, prison officials knew of and

disregarded the risk. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The very

obviousness of the risk may suffice to establish the knowledge

element. See Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.

1995). Prison officials are not liable, however, if evidence is

presented that they lacked knowledge of a safety risk. See Farmer,

511 U.S. at 844. The knowledge element does not require that the

plaintiff prove that prison officials know for a certainty that the

inmate’s safety is in danger, but it requires proof of more than a

mere suspicion of danger. See Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457,

459 (9th Cir. 1986). Finally, the plaintiff must show that prison

officials disregarded a risk. Thus, where prison officials actually

knew of a substantial risk, they are not liable if they took

reasonable steps to respond to the risk, even if harm ultimately was

not averted. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. 

(Order, Doc. 13, at 3).

In his response to the order to show cause, plaintiff explains that he and inmate

Turcot were in fact transferred to the same facility. However, he makes it clear they were

assigned to different yards, and the only possible contact between the two were during medical

clinic trips. This is not a case where the defendants intentionally housed two known enemies in

the same cell, much less same yard where they would be in direct contact on a regular basis. 

While there is some remote risk that the two could come in contact with each other during a

medical visit, the possibility of an attack during such contact is remote. Plaintiff’s claims of risk

are simply too tenuous to be sufficient to state a claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment

rights.

Plaintiff was informed as to the defects in his complaint, and he was provided an

opportunity to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiff’s response thereto clarifies that the defects in his claims are not curable and his

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

/ / / 

2

Case 2:13-cv-00706-CMK Document 15 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted; and 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

DATED: May 15, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-00706-CMK Document 15 Filed 05/15/15 Page 3 of 3