Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05607/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05607-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05607-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He 

has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

Case 3:18-cv-05607-JD Document 4 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff states that he is living in unsanitary conditions at the county jail. Inmates who sue 

prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so under the Eighth Amendment’s 

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s 

Due Process Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); Castro v. Cnty. of Los 

Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). But under both clauses, the inmate 

must show that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at 1068. Under the 

Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial detainee plaintiff also must show that the challenged prison 

condition amounts to punishment because it is not “reasonably related to a legitimate 

governmental objective.” Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Board of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 924 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 539). 1 If the particular restriction or condition is reasonably 

related, without more, it does not amount to punishment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538-39; but cf. Shorter 

v. Baca, No. 16-56051, slip op. at 25 (9th Cir. Jul. 16, 2018) (holding jail officials not entitled to 

deference where they offered no reason for keeping mentally ill inmates shackled and unclothed, 

without food, water, or access to a toilet for hours at a time).

Plaintiff states that there has been constant flooding in the jail of raw sewage and he has 

not been provided adequate cleaning supplies to protect himself and to clean up the sewage. 

 

 

1 Under the Eighth Amendment, a convicted prisoner must show that the challenged prison 

condition is serious enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the 

Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

Case 3:18-cv-05607-JD Document 4 Filed 11/28/18 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

However, plaintiff has not identified any specific defendant and how they are responsible for the 

living conditions. Nor has plaintiff described if he has requested that the conditions be repaired 

and what occurred. It is also not clear if plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. 

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to provide more allegations to state a 

constitutional deprivation. Plaintiff must identify if he is a convicted prisoner or a pretrial 

detainee and he must provide more information in support of his claim and identify the appropriate 

defendants. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2018

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05607-JD Document 4 Filed 11/28/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WILKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05607-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 28, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

David Wilkes ID: 1809315

San Francisco County Jail

850 Bryant Street

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dated: November 28, 2018

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:18-cv-05607-JD Document 4 Filed 11/28/18 Page 4 of 4