Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02370/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02370-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16-cv-2370 LAB (JLB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELVIS JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KROLL et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-cv-2370 LAB (JLB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANT KRALL

[ECF No. 7]

Plaintiff Elvis Jones, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

a complaint in this Court on September 19, 2016, alleging civil rights violations pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Dr. T. Krall (erroneously sued as “Dr. Kroll”) and 

Dr. C. Daub (erroneously sued as “Dr. Daubs”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges 

that Dr. Krall and Dr. Daub violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and 

unusual punishment when they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate while

housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. (Id.) 

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims alleged in 

Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Krall. (ECF No. 7.) In response to Defendants’ 

motion, Plaintiff has filed a statement of non-opposition titled, “Agreement to dismiss Dr. 

Kroll as defendant from Complaint.”1(ECF No. 11.) 

 

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s statement filed in response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

agrees to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Krall only. Defendants have not moved to dismiss 

the claims asserted against Defendant Daub (see ECF No. 7), and Plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition 

asserts that he intends for Defendant Daub to remain a defendant in this case (see ECF No. 11). 

Case 3:16-cv-02370-LAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-cv-2370 LAB (JLB)

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 Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge 

Larry A. Burns pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 

After a thorough review of Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and

Plaintiff’s response thereto, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants Krall and Daub violated Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment right when they failed to protect him from an attack by another inmate. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants allowed an inmate gang member and enemy 

of Plaintiff’s, inmate Pride, into the mental health program from which Plaintiff was 

receiving treatment. (ECF No. 1 at 5–7.) As a result, Plaintiff alleges, Plaintiff was 

attacked by another inmate on the orders of inmate Pride. (Id. at 4, 7.) Plaintiff sustained

a broken jaw as a result of the attack. (Id. at 4–5.) 

A prison official violates an inmate’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel 

and unusual punishment when he acts with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of 

serious harm to the inmate. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). The deliberate 

indifference standard involves both an objective and subjective prong. Id. at 834. Under 

the objective prong, the alleged deprivation suffered as a result of the official’s act or 

omission to act must have been “sufficiently serious.” Id. Under the subjective standard, 

the prison official must have had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which, in the 

context of prisoner § 1983 cases, is one of deliberate indifference. Id. (quoting Wilson v. 

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991)). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official 

must know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety. Id. at 837. 

That is, the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn 

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and draw the inference. Id. 

Liability under § 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the 

defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Within the context of 

§ 1983, a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right only “if he 

Case 3:16-cv-02370-LAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-cv-2370 LAB (JLB)

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

does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act 

which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 

Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). 

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Krall should be dismissed 

because “the Complaint contains virtually no details about Defendant Krall’s alleged 

involvement or culpability.” (ECF No. 7-1 at 4.) “The only allegations about Defendant 

Krall,” Defendants argue, “are that Krall is a psychologist, and that Krall met with inmate 

Pride one time about the EOP program.” (Id.) 

The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege sufficient 

facts both that Defendant Krall personally participated in actions resulting in the 

complained of deprivation and that Defendant Krall was deliberately indifferent to a 

substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint makes only two mentions of 

Defendant Krall: that Dr. Krall is a psychiatrist or psychologist and that he had met with 

inmate Pride concerning inmate Pride’s need of mental health services. (ECF No. 1 at 2, 

5.) The complaint does not allege that Dr. Krall was in any way involved in allowing 

inmate Pride into the same mental health program from which Plaintiff was receiving 

treatment or that he did so with knowledge that inmate Pride posed an excessive risk of 

harm to Plaintiff. Thus, in light of both Plaintiff’s failure to allege that Defendant Krall 

personally participated in the events that Plaintiff complains violated his Eighth 

Amendment right, see Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045, and Plaintiff’s statement agreeing to 

dismiss his claims against Defendant Krall (ECF No. 11), the Court recommends that 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Court issue an 

Order: (1) Accepting this Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTING Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Krall (ECF No. 7); 

and (3) DISMISSING without prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant 

Krall. 

Case 3:16-cv-02370-LAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-cv-2370 LAB (JLB)

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

IT IS ORDERED that no later than May 2, 2017, any party to this action may file 

written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be 

captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with 

the Court and served on all parties no later than May 9, 2017. The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 17, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02370-LAB-JLB Document 12 Filed 04/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4