Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05023/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05023-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keefe Supply Company
Defendant
Calvin Lovelle Moore
Plaintiff
Santa Clara County Jail Officials
Defendant

Document Text:

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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN LOVELLE MOORE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY JAIL

OFFICIALS and KEEFE SUPPLY

COMPANY, St. Louis, Missouri, 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-5023 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a former prisoner at the Santa Clara County Jail who is now in state prison,

has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the filing fee.

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to

the action occurred in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

DISCUSSION

A. 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). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a

plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person

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

Case 4:06-cv-05023-PJH Document 2 Filed 04/09/07 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

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff purchased a bag of tortilla chips from the jail canteen. He cut his thumb on

a sharp piece of metal which was in the bag. He contends that defendants were negligent

in allowing the metal to be included in the bag of chips.

Neither negligence nor gross negligence is actionable under § 1983 in the prison

context. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n.4 (1994). The standard is

deliberate indifference to inmate safety under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 834. A prison

official cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane

conditions of confinement unless the standard for criminal recklessness is met, i.e., the

official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Id. at 837. 

The official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

substantial risk of serious harm exists and also draw the inference. Id.

It is evident that one instance of finding a foreign object in a packaged food item is

not sufficient to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent under this standard. 

With regard to the food company, not only is it not a state actor, but even assuming for the

sake of this decision that the food company was acting under color of state law, the

allegations also are insufficient to allege an Eighth Amendment claim against it. The

federal claims thus will be dismissed without leave to amend. See Janicki Logging Co. v.

Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (leave to amend may be denied on grounds of

futility). Any supplemental state law claims that may have been intended will be dismissed

without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. The

state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.06\MOORE023.DSM United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-05023-PJH Document 2 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2