Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02750/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02750-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOB ADAM CASTRO,

CDCR #K-48103,

Civil

No. 

13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

G.J. JANDA; BENTLY; DR. GREY;

VALENCIA; S. HERNANDEZ; L.

HERNANDEZ; SUDU; CONES;

LIEUTENANT DAVIS,

Defendant.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 23, 2013, Jacob Adam Castro (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently at

Corcoran State Prison located in Corcoran, California, and proceeding in pro se, filed

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Central District of California. 

On November 6, 2013, United States District Judge George H. King determined that

venue was not proper in the Central District and transferred the matter to the Southern

District of California. 

1 13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02750-BEN-MDD Document 15 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff did not prepay the initial civil filing fee but instead filed a Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), along with a

Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [ECF Nos. 1, 6.] This Court granted Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously dismissed his Complaint for failing to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted. [ECF No. 7.] Plaintiff was given leave to file

an amended pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the

Court. Id. After requesting and receiving several extensions of time to comply with the

Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). [ECF No. 14.]

II.

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

As the Court stated in the previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”) 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

terms 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 of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek

damagesfrom defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A;

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9thCir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick

v. 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 determining 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 of Federal Rule of Civil 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

2 13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02750-BEN-MDD Document 15 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 5
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

in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). 

However, in giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, the court may

not “supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of

Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “Vague and

conclusory allegations of official 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 requirements upon a claimant: (1) that

a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the

conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell,

541 U.S. 637, 124 S. Ct. 2117, 2122 (2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354

(9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

B. Eighth Amendment Failure to Protect claims

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect him from harm when he fell

down stairs at the Imperial County Courthouse while being escorted in “waistchains” and

“shackles.” (FAC at 5-6.) The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits “cruel and unusual

punishments,” imposes a duty on prison officials to provide humane conditions of

confinement and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the

inmates. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1993). However, every injury

suffered by an inmate does not necessarily translate into constitutional liability for prison

officials. Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir. 1996); Rhodes v. Chapman,

452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981) (noting that the U.S. Constitution “does not mandate

comfortable prisons.”). 

Thus, to assert an Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of humane conditions

of confinement a prisoner must satisfy two requirements: one objective and one

subjective. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082,

1087 (9th Cir. 1994). Under the objective requirement, the plaintiff must allege facts

3 13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02750-BEN-MDD Document 15 Filed 12/08/14 Page 3 of 5
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

sufficient to show that “a prison official’s acts or omissions . . . result[ed] in the denial

of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834

(quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). This objective component is satisfied so long as the

institution “furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter,

sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246

(9th Cir. 1982); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 534; Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th

Cir. 1981). The subjective requirement, relating to the defendant’s state of mind,

requiresthat the plaintiff allege facts sufficient to show “deliberate indifference.” Allen,

48 F.3d at 1087. “Deliberate indifference” exists when a prison official “knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; the official must be both aware

of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state an Eighth Amendment claim because they

do not rise to the level of a serious safety hazard. See Osolinski, 92 F.3d at 939 (finding

that prisoner’s injury due to faulty oven door was not sufficient to state an Eighth

Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim because Plaintiff did not plead any

“exacerbating conditions” which rendered him unable to “provide for [his] own safety,”

i.e., that prison officials precluded him from avoiding the faulty oven door or rendered

him unable to perceive its defective condition); see also Tunstall v. Rowe, 478 F. Supp.

87, 89 (N. D. Ill. 1979) (the existence of a greasy staircase which caused a prisoner to

slip and fall did not violate the Eighth Amendment). As currently pleaded, the Court

finds that Plaintiff alleges no facts which are sufficient to show that the conditions of

confinement were objectively and demonstrably unsafe, and further fails to allege facts

which show that any of the named Defendants were actually aware and consciously

disregarded the risk posed. See Helling, 509 U.S. at 36 (exposure to demonstrably

unsafe conditions may violate the Eighth Amendment if the inmate can show that the risk

he faced was “so grave that it violates contemporary standards of decency”); Farmer,

511 U.S. at 828-29 (deliberate indifference requires a showing that specific prison

4 13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02750-BEN-MDD Document 15 Filed 12/08/14 Page 4 of 5
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

officials were “subjectively aware of the risk”).

Accordingly, as currently plead, Plaintiff has 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, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect 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:

Plaintiff’s First Amended 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

Complaintwhich cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s 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 not re-alleged in the

Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, if Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failsto 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). 

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a form § 1983 complaint to Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 4, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

5 13cv2750 BEN (MDD)

Case 3:13-cv-02750-BEN-MDD Document 15 Filed 12/08/14 Page 5 of 5