Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac
Defendant
Noel Rodriguez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

ISAAC,

 Defendant.

1:11-cv-01914-AWI-GSA-PC

 

ORDER FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIM

ORDER FOR THIS CASE TO PROCEED 

AGAINST DEFENDANT ISAAC FOR 

FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF

(Doc. 15.)

ORDER FINDING SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE FOR 

SERVICE AND FORWARDING SERVICE 

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR 

COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 15.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Noel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

November 17, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed the First Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. 6.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §

1915A and entered an order on May 8, 2014, dismissing the First Amended Complaint for 

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 14.) On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed the 

Second Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 15.)

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 6
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

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). 

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

' 1915A(b)(1),(2). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Id. 

III. SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison (KVSP) in Calipatria, 

California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR). The events at issue in the Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred at the 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) in Corcoran, 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 6
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

California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there. Plaintiff names as sole defendant

Correctional Counselor Isaac (“Defendant”). Defendant was employed by the CDCR at SATF

at the time of the events at issue. Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow.

Plaintiff was a member of the South Side prison gang, which takes orders from the 

Mexican Mafia prison gang. Plaintiff had problems with both of these gangs, resulting in 

Plaintiff engaging in violence with three of his cell mates. Plaintiff was placed in solitary 

confinement between 1998 and 2008 for attempted murder, attempted battery, and murder. 

In March 2008, Plaintiff appeared before a classification committee and was informed 

by counselor O’Baily [not a defendant] that the South Side prison gang wanted to kill Plaintiff, 

and Plaintiff should be placed in protective custody. Plaintiff refused protective custody, and 

the committee decided to retain Plaintiff in solitary confinement due to security concerns.

On August 6, 2008, defendant Isaac informed Plaintiff that she had become aware of 

confidential information that the South Side gang wanted to kill Plaintiff, and Plaintiff should 

be placed in protective custody. Plaintiff refused protective custody. Defendant Isaac 

informed Plaintiff that she would advise the classification committee to keep Plaintiff in 

solitary confinement due to security concerns.

The following day, the classification committee asked defendant Isaac if security 

concerns existed. Defendant responded, “No.” (Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 15 at 6:9.) 

The committee asked Plaintiff if any concerns existed. Plaintiff responded, “No.” (Id. at 6:11.) 

The committee decided that since no security concerns existed, Plaintiff would be released to 

the general population at SATF. On December 16, 2008, Plaintiff was released to the general 

population.

Several months later, on June 1, 2009, the South Side gang identified Plaintiff as an 

enemy and attempted to kill him.

On August 5, 2009, the classification committee determined that security concerns did 

exist, and Plaintiff should never have been placed in the general population.

Plaintiff requests monetary damages.

///

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 6
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

IV. PLAINTIFF=S EIGHTH AMENDMENT FAILURE TO PROTECT CLAIM

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by 

the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an 

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 

redress.

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal 

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must 

provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates 

from physical abuse. Id. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). 

To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials 

were Adeliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmates=s safety.@ Farmer, at 834. The 

question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials, acting with deliberate 

indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial >risk of serious damage to his 

future health . . . .=@ Id. at 843 (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). The 

Supreme Court has explained that Adeliberate indifference entails something more than mere 

negligence ... [but] something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm 

or with the knowledge that harm will result.@ Farmer at 835. The Court defined this Adeliberate 

indifference@ standard as equal to Arecklessness,@ in which Aa person disregards a risk of harm 

of which he is aware.@ Id. at 836-37.

The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong. 

First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, Asufficiently serious.@ Id. at 834. 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 6
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

Second, subjectively, the prison official must Aknow of and disregard an excessive risk to 

inmate health or safety.@ Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 

1995). To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner may rely on circumstantial 

evidence; in fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to establish knowledge. 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995).

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, the court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim against defendant Isaac for failure to protect him.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against defendant Isaac for 

failure to protect him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be 

allowed to proceed with the Second Amended Complaint filed on May 22, 2014, on the claim 

found cognizable by the Court. The Clerk shall be directed to forward to Plaintiff documents 

for initiation of service of process.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint, on Plaintiff=s 

Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Isaac (Correctional Counselor) for 

failure to protect him; 

2. Service is appropriate for the following defendant:

CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR ISAAC

3. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 form, one (1) summons, a 

Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of 

the Second Amended Complaint filed on May 22, 2014 (Doc. 15);

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the 

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice 

to the Court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. Completed USM-285 form for defendant Isaac; and

///

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint filed on 

May 22, 2014;

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of 

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct 

the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendant pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and 

6. The failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 Page 6 of 6