Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04800/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04800-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David W. Arisman
Plaintiff
R. Atos
Defendant
N. Grannis
Defendant
C. Perea
Defendant
J. S. Woodford
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID W. ARISMAN,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. S. WOODFORD, Warden; R. ATOS,

Supervising Cook; C. PEREA, Food

Administrator I; and N. GRANNIS, Chief,

Inmate Appeals Division, CDCR,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-4800 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; DENIAL

OF MOTION FOR COUNSEL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Due to an unfortunate

oversight by staff the case has not received the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),

which is performed below. 

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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

Case 4:03-cv-04800-PJH Document 12 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

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 essential

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).

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff is on death row at San Quentin. He contends that the diet served him is

high in carbohydrates and fats and lacks sufficient fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and

“healthy fats.” He asserts that the diet is based on out-dated federal diet recommendations

which have been refuted by new research, and that as a result the food is insufficient to

maintain his health. 

As an abstract matter, this is sufficient to state a claim, see LeMaire v. Maass, 12

F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993) (Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive

food that is adequate to maintain health), but plaintiff has failed to allege facts as to the

named defendants sufficient “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1986-87 (2007). To state a claim against them

he must allege, plausibly, what role they played in determining the prison diet. The

complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend for plaintiff to remedy this deficiency. 

In amending, he should bear in mind that a prison official cannot be held liable under

the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the

official is shown to have been deliberately indifferent to the allegedly unconstitutional

condition. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). To show deliberate

indifference the standard for criminal recklessness must be met, i.e., it must be shown that

the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Id. A

prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a substantial

risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. 

Id. The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but the official “must also draw the

Case 4:03-cv-04800-PJH Document 12 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the

official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v.

County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

C. Motion for Counsel

Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel. 

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, Lassiter v. Dep't of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981), and although district courts may "request" that counsel

represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis, as plaintiff is here, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1), that does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of

counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may ask counsel to represent an

indigent litigant only in "exceptional circumstances," the determination of which requires an

evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits and (2) the ability of the

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Plaintiff appears able to present his claims adequately, and the issues are not

complex. The motion for appointment of counsel will be denied. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (document number 9 on the docket)

is DENIED.

2. For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as

indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint

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 these claims.

Case 4:03-cv-04800-PJH Document 12 Filed 08/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. 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: August 14, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.03\ARISMAN4800.DWLTA.wpd

Case 4:03-cv-04800-PJH Document 12 Filed 08/14/07 Page 4 of 4