Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00675/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00675-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Clark
Defendant
Robert Gambrell
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GAMBRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00675-DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON

WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Doc. 12)

DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Robert Gambrell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 15, 2009, Plaintiff

filed the complaint that initiated this action. (Doc. 1.) On September 30, 2009, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1983, with leave to file an

amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 11.) On October 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed his

amended complaint. (Doc. 12.)

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 “frivolous 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

1

Case 1:09-cv-00675-DLB Document 14 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 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

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 must contain “a 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 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

conclusions are not. Id.

II. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint And Analysis

Plaintiff was incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in

Corcoran, California, where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff names as

Defendants Warden Ken Clark and cook J. Escobedo.

Plaintiff alleges that on September 19, while Plaintiff worked in the G-yard dining

room/kitchen, Plaintiff slipped and fell in grease and water. Plaintiff waited for four hours before

he was transported to Fresno Community Hospital. Surgery was performed to repair a commuted

fractured femur of Plaintiff’s right leg. Plaintiff contends that this accident could have been

prevented if safety measures and equipment had been available.

Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, including rubber mats and anti-skid strips, safety gear,

warning signs, future medical care related to his injury, and monetary damages.

Plaintiff again fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Plaintiff was previously provided

with the pleading requirements for an Eighth Amendment claim. To constitute cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). 

Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners

with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id.; Toussaint v.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00675-DLB Document 14 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 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

McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir.

1982). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of confinement,

prison officials may be held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to a substantial

risk of serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

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

the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second,

the prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . .

. .” Id. at 837. Mere negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish

liability, but rather, the official’s conduct must have been wanton. Id. at 835; Frost, 152 F.3d at

1128.

Plaintiff’s allegations amount at most to negligence by Defendants Clark and Escobedo,

which is not a cognizable § 1983 claim. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Defendants knew of

and disregarded an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety. Plaintiff’s legal conclusion that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent does not state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable federal claims against any Defendants. Plaintiff had

previously been provided with the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies

identified. Plaintiff amended his complaint, but is still unable to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that further leave to amend will not be granted. Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 13, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00675-DLB Document 14 Filed 04/14/10 Page 3 of 3