Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02784/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02784-4/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID M. DAVID,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-2784 KJM DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his 

claims against defendants McDonald and Grannis.

By way of background, at the time the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint, it 

determined that liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim 

under Eighth Amendment for failure to protect against defendants Davey, Beaseley, “Roe”, 

Brown, Schwab, Stoval, Lewis, and Buhay. The court also determined, however, that plaintiff’s 

amended complaint did not appear to state a cognizable claim against defendants McDonald and 

Grannis. Specifically, the court found that plaintiff had not alleged facts in his amended 

complaint adequately explaining how defendants McDonald and Grannis’ actions rose to the level 

of “deliberate indifference” to his health and safety.

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02784-KJM-DB Document 21 Filed 05/21/14 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

27

28

2

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint once again and considered 

plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his claims against defendants McDonald and Grannis. Again, the 

court will not order service of plaintiff’s amended complaint on defendants McDonald and 

Grannis. It is well established that “prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from 

violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). “Being 

violently assaulted in prison is simply not ‘part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their 

offense against society.’” Id. at 834. However, prison officials do not incur constitutional 

liability for every injury suffered by a prisoner at the hands of another prisoner. Id. “[P]rison 

officials who lacked knowledge of a risk cannot be said to have inflicted punishment. . . .” Id. at 

844.

The allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint concerning the involvement of 

McDonald and Grannis in the deprivation of his civil rights are too vague and conclusory to state 

a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

Specifically, plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that these defendants knew that plaintiff faced 

a substantial risk of serious harm but failed to take reasonable measures in response to it. See

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). With respect to defendant McDonald, plaintiff 

alleges only that McDonald’s subordinates were on actual notice of an impending murder attempt

on plaintiff. (Am. Compl. at 2.) Likewise, with respect to defendant Grannis, plaintiff alleges 

only that he sent an inmate appeal to Sacramento requesting a log number because other 

defendants had destroyed, rejected, and cancelled his prior inmate appeals, and that appeal was 

stamped “received” three days before the attack on plaintiff. (Id.) Without more, these 

allegations, even if proven, simply do not rise to the level of “deliberate indifference” to 

plaintiff’s healthy and safety on the part of McDonald and Grannis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his claims 

against defendants McDonald and Grannis (Doc. No. 18) is denied. By separate order, the court 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02784-KJM-DB Document 21 Filed 05/21/14 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

27

28

3

will direct the United States Marshal to serve plaintiff’s amended complaint on the remaining 

defendants.

Dated: May 21, 2014

DAD:9

davi2784.mot

Case 2:11-cv-02784-KJM-DB Document 21 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 3