Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01449/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01449-2/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 

FILED' 

·JUl 25 2012 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL WILLIAMS, 

CDCR #T-30101, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DR. A SANGHA' JOHN DOE, Director of 

CDCR; JOHN DOE, Director ofCorrections 

Corporation ofAmerica; JANE DOE; JOHN 

DOES 1-50, Officers ofNorthfork 

Correctional Facility, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 12cv1449 WQH (NLS) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING 

NO PARTIAL FILING FEE AND 

GARNISIDNG $ 350 BALANCE 

FROM PRISONER'S TRUST 

ACCOUNT PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

[ECF No.9]; 

(2) DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO 

STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) 

Michael Williams ("Plaintiff'), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Centinela State 

Prison located in Imperial, California, and proceeding in pro se, initially filed a civil rights action 

pursuantt042 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Northern District ofCalifornia. On June 13,2012, United 

States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined venue was proper in the Southern 

District of California and transferred the matter to this Court. [ECF No.4]. 

/ / / 

K:ICOMMONlEVERYONE\_EFILE.PROSE\WQHlI2cvl449·grt IFP & dsm.wpd 1 12cvl449 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:12-cv-01449-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 7
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

l3 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead he 

has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF 

No.9]. In addition, Plaintiffhas filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). [ECF No.7.] 

L 

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe United 

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of$350. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire fee 

only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, prisoners granted leave to 

proceed IFP remain obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether their 

action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 

844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), a 

prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a "certified copy of the trust fund account 

statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately 

preceding the filing ofthe complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2);Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 

1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial 

payment of20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or 

(b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, 

unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h)(4). The 

institution having custody ofthe prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of 

the preceding month's income, in any month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and 

forward those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b )(2). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has no available funds from which to pay filing fees at this 

time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that "[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited 

from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSElWQH\12cvl449-grt IFF & dsmwpd 2 12cvl449 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:12-cv-01449-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 07/25/12 Page 2 of 7
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 

the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee."); Taylor, 

281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) acts as a "safety-valve" preventing 

dismissal of a prisoner's IFP case based solely on a "failure to pay ... due to the lack of funds 

available to him when payment is ordered."). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion 

to Proceed IFP [ECF No.9] and assesses no initial partial filing fee per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(l). 

However, the entire $350 balance ofthe filing fees mandated shall be collected and forwarded 

to the Clerk ofthe Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(l). 

III. 

SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 

The PLRA also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding 

IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused 

of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the tenns or 

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as 

practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these 

provisions ofthe PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who 

are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126­

27 (9th Cir. 2000)(en banc)(§ 1915(e)(2»; Resnickv. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,446 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(§ 1915A); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing 

§ 1915A). 

"[W]hen detennining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff." Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) 

"parallels the language ofFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's 

duty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, in giving liberal interpretation to a 

K:\cOMMON\EVERYOl'<1"_EFILE-PROSEIWQHlI2cvl449_grt IFP & dsmwpd 3 12cvl449 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:12-cv-01449-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 07/25/12 Page 3 of 7
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 

pro se civil rights complaint, the court may not "supply essential elements of claims that were 

not initially pled." Ivey v. Board ofRegents ofthe University ofAlaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1982). "Vague and conclusory allegations ofofficial participation in civil rights violations 

are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss." Id. 

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability 

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirement~ upon a claimant: (1) that a person 

acting under color ofstate law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived 

the claimant ofsome right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws ofthe 

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 124 S. Ct. 2117, 2122 

(2004); Haygoodv. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

B. Eighth Amendment claims 

Plaintiff alleges a number of Eighth Amendment violations. Plaintiff, an inmate 

incarcerated by the California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), was sent 

to be housed in North Fork Correctional Facility, an out ofstate facility, in November of2010 

due to the overcrowding of prisons in California. (See FAC at 3.) On October 11, 2011, 

Plaintiff alleges a riot broke out in the prison and he was "violently attacked by other inmates" 

with a "metal baseball bat." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he suffered a serious brain injury and was 

returned to Centinela State Prison in California to receive medical treatment. (Id.) 

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires that 

prison officials act reasonably in protecting inmates from violence suffered at the hands ofother 

prisoners. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833; Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457,459 (9th Cir. 1986). 

However, to state a failure to protect claim, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that 

Defendants were "deliberately indifferent," that they were aware of, but nevertheless consciously 

disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. If the official 

is not alleged to have actual knowledge of a serious risk of harm, but is alleged to be aware of 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk ofserious harm exists, the 

plaintiff must further allege that the official "also dr[ew] the inference." Id. at 837; Wilson v. 

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). 

KICOMMON\EVERYONEI_EFILE.PROSEIWQH\12cvl449-grt IFF & d.m wpd 4 12cv1449 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:12-cv-01449-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 07/25/12 Page 4 of 7
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 

Here, while Plaintiff identifies a serious risk to this safety, he fails to adequately allege 

with any specificity how the individual Defendants would have known that there was a serious 

risk of harm. Plaintiff clearly alleges that he was assaulted by other inmates but he does not 

allege any facts that would demonstrate that either the Director ofthe CDCR or the Director of 

the North Folk Correctional Facility had any knowledge that another inmate would cause him 

serious harm. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("A claim has facial plausibility 

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."). 

Accordingly, as currently plead, Plaintiffhas failed to show that any Defendant acted with 

conscious disregard to a risk to his safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (to establish a deprivation of a constitutional right by any 

particular individual, the plaintiff must allege that the individual, in acting or failing to act, was 

the actual and proximate cause of his injury). Thus, Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment failure to 

protect claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

As to Plaintiffs claims with respect to his medical care issues while housed at Centinela 

State Prison, Plaintiff alleges insufficient facts to find that he has stated an Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claim as to Defendant Sangha. Where an inmate's claim is one of 

inadequate medical care, the inmate must allege "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to 

evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 

(1976). Such a claim has two elements: "the seriousness ofthe prisoner's medical need and the 

nature ofthe defendant's response to that need." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th 

Cir.1991),overruledonothergroundsbyWMXTechs.,Inc. v.Miller, 104F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th 

Cir. 1997). A medical need is serious "ifthe failure to treat the prisoner's condition could result 

in further significant injury or the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction ofpain.'" McGuckin, 974 

F.2d at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Indications ofa serious medical need include 

"the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities." 

Id. at 1059-60. By establishing the existence ofa serious medical need, an inmate satisfies the 

objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

K:ICOMMON\EVERYONEI_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\12cvl449-grt IFP & dsm,wpd 5 12cvl449 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:12-cv-01449-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 07/25/12 Page 5 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, or 

intentionally interfere with a prescribed course ofmedical treatment, or it may be shown by the 

way in which prison medical officials provide necessary care. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 

F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988). Before it can be said that a inmate's civil rights have been 

abridged with regard to medical care, however, "the indifference to his medical needs must be 

substantial. Mere 'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this 

cause of action." Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F .2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). See also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). 

While Plaintiff alleges a serious medical need, he fails to allege facts sufficient to state 

lOa deliberate indifference claim as to Defendant Sangha. Plaintiff admits that he has received 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

medical examinations, as well as pain medication. (See FAC at 4-5.) However, his only 

allegation specific to Dr. Sangha is the allegation that "Dr. A. Sangha is responsible for allowing 

me to go see a neurologist and what care I get." (/d.) These facts, as currently stated, do not rise 

to the level of "deliberate indifference." 

Thus, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claims are dismissed for 

failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

III. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [ECF No.9] is 

GRANTED. 

2. The Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or his 

designee, shall collect from Plaintiffs prison trust account the $350 balance ofthe filing fee owed in this 

case by collecting monthly payments from the account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of 

the preceding month's income and forward payments to the Clerk ofthe Court each time the amount in 

the account exceeds $10 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE 

CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO TillS ACTION. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Matthew Cate, 

K:\COMMONlEVERYONE\EFILE-PROSE\WQH\12cvl449-grt IFP & dsmwpd 6 12cvl449 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:12-cv-01449-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 07/25/12 Page 6 of 7
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 

Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1515 S Street, Suite 502, 

Sacramento, California 95814. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

4. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the 

date this Order is "Filed" in which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies 

ofpleading noted above. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference 

to the superseded pleading. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims notrealleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 

565,567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, ifPlaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and may hereafter be 

counted as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th 

Cir. 1996). 

5. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail a form § 1983 complaint to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILF~PROSE\WQH\12cvl449-grt IFF & dsm.wpd 7 12cvl449 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:12-cv-01449-WQH-NLS Document 10 Filed 07/25/12 Page 7 of 7