Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04595/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04595-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN O’DONNELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHAWN DIETRICH, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-4595 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 5, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Corcoran State

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On April 11, 2008, the Court reviewed the complaint and found plaintiff’s

allegations failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Specifically, the Court found

plaintiff’s claims that correctional officers acted negligently when they cut plaintiff’s arm

while using a knife to remove plaintiff’s plastic handcuffs, and later when they put new

handcuffs on plaintiff too tightly, were not actionable under § 1983. The Court granted

plaintiff leave to amend to plead facts that state a claim for relief under the Eighth

Amendment. 

On May 2, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which he alleges that

correctional officer Dietrich acted in violation of the Eighth Amendment because Dietrich

acted deliberately and in violation of prison regulations by using a knife to cut off plaintiff’s

handcuffs, which resulted in plaintiff’s arm being cut, and by improperly fastening plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-04595-MMC Document 11 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

new handcuffs. 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. 

Even if, as plaintiff alleges, Dietrich used a knife to remove the handcuffs, instead of an 

approved tool, knowing that doing so was in violation of prison regulations, and accidentally

cut plaintiff in the process, plaintiff has alleged no facts from which it can reasonably be

inferred that Dietrich used force “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing

harm,” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992), or that Dietrich knew or should have

known that he was acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety by placing plaintiff

at a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Similarly, plaintiff’s allegation that Dietrich subsequently failed to properly lock plaintiff’s

handcuffs, which caused the left handcuff to tighten painfully around plaintiff’s injury, does

not raise an inference that Dietrich acted maliciously and sadistically or with deliberate

indifference. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that plaintiff has failed

to state a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. Accordingly, the complaint is hereby

DISMISSED without further leave to amend. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-04595-MMC Document 11 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 2