Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02944/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02944-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Popow
Defendant
Spencer
Defendant
Keewin L. Walker
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

KEEWIN L. WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. POPOW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02944-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket No. 9

Keewin L. Walker, a prisoner at the Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend because 

the complaint failed to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation and failed to state a claim 

for retaliation. 

Mr. Walker then filed an amended complaint, which is now before the Court for review 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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. See id. at § 

1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The amended complaint, like the original complaint, alleges that correctional officer (C/O) 

Popow intentionally delayed and disrupted Mr. Walker’s ability to have a pre-dinner shower every 

day after he had worked with contaminants, and announced to the housing tier that inmate 

programming would be delayed because Mr. Walker needed to shower. The amended complaint, 

like the original complaint, also alleges that sergeant Spencer caused Mr. Walker to be moved to 

another housing unit after Mr. Walker had complained about his shower situation. The amended 

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 10 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint essentially repeats the allegations in the original complaint, and does not cure the 

deficiencies mentioned in the order of dismissal with leave to amend. 

The order of dismissal with leave to amend discussed the objective and subjective elements

of an Eighth Amendment claim and explained the shortcomings in Mr. Walker’s pleading: 

The complaint does not adequately plead an objectively serious 

condition because Mr. Walker does not allege on how many 

occasions he was denied a shower or what contaminants were 

actually on him when he was denied a shower. Without this 

information, it cannot be determined whether this was a sporadic 

problem or a persistent problem, and whether there [was an] actual 

rather than potential contamination problem. The complaint also 

does not adequately plead the subjective element because no facts 

are alleged suggesting that C/O Pop[ow] knew of and disregarded an 

excessive risk to inmate health or safety when he refused to let Mr. 

Walker shower before dinner.

The allegation that C/O Pop[ow] announced to the housing unit that 

the programming was delayed so that Mr. Walker could have his 

shower does not state a plausible claim of deliberate indifference to 

Mr. Walker’s safety. No facts are alleged to suggest that prisoners 

are so inclined toward violence that a mere announcement of an 

inconvenience, even when it is announced that the inconvenience is 

caused by a specific prisoner, will cause other prisoners to attack the

prisoner who causes the inconvenience. Cf. Valandingham v. 

Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 1989) (deliberately 

spreading rumor that prisoner is snitch may state claim for violation 

of right to be protected from violence while in state custody). Mr. 

Walker does not allege that he was attacked or harmed by any 

inmate as a result of the announcement. 

Docket No. 8 at 3-4. The amended complaint does not cure any of these deficiencies, i.e., Mr. 

Walker does not allege facts plausibly suggesting an objectively serious condition or that C/O 

Popow was deliberately indifferent to health or safety when he disallowed the pre-meal showers 

and announced a delay in programming for the housing unit.

The order of dismissal with leave to amend also described the elements of a retaliation 

claim and explained how the complaint failed to state a retaliation claim.

The complaint suggests that there was a legitimate correctional goal 

promoted by the action, i.e., sergeant Spencer said he was moving 

Mr. Walker to another housing unit so that he could get his shower. 

If showering was necessary before meals and could be 

accommodated more easily in the new housing unit, the move 

reasonably would advance a legitimate correctional goal. The 

complaint also does not adequately allege an adverse action or a 

chilling effect because Mr. Walker does not allege that there was 

anything worse about the new housing unit than the old housing 

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 10 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 3
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

unit. 

Docket No. 8 at 4. The amended complaint does not cure these deficiencies in the retaliation 

claim, i.e., Mr. Walker does not allege facts plausibly suggesting the absence of a legitimate 

correctional goal, an adverse action, or a chilling effect.

The amended complaint, like the original complaint, fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the Court 

already described the deficiencies and Mr. Walker was unable or unwilling to cure them. 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02944-EMC Document 10 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 3