Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01279/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01279-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawncey Blake
Plaintiff
County of Santa Clara
Defendant

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

SHAWNCEY BLAKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01279-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 6

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed as a class action. Docket No. 

6. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons 

stated below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend and the motion for class certification 

is DENIED.

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). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

Case 4:16-cv-01279-HSG Document 9 Filed 08/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in 

order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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 violation 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 alleges that the following conditions of confinement at the Santa Clara County Jail 

constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment: 

inadequate ventilation; poor air circulation; high levels of lead and chemicals in the water; poor 

sanitation; roach and gnat infestations; exposed plumbing; sewage leakage in the pro-per phone 

room; mold in the showers; a constant high pitched noise that affects Plaintiff’s ears and Plaintiff’s 

sleep; and overcrowding that exacerbates his mental health issues. Docket No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 3. 

Plaintiff also alleges that he has been retaliated against for his civil lawsuits by being forced to 

remain in a higher classification status than other similarly situated inmates. Id. Plaintiff also 

alleges that he fears for his safety because prison officials “retaliate [against], beat, and murder 

mentally ill inmates. Id. Plaintiff names as defendants Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara 

County Department of Corrections (“DOC”).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations that there is a constant high pitched noise in the 

prison that affects Plaintiff’s ears and Plaintiff’s sleep; and that the prison is overcrowded, 

exacerbating his mental health issues, state cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. See Keenan v. 

Case 4:16-cv-01279-HSG Document 9 Filed 08/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[P]ublic 

conceptions of decency inherent in the Eighth Amendment require that [inmates] be housed in an 

environment that, if not quiet, is at least reasonably free of excess noise.”) (quoting Toussaint v. 

McCarthy, 597 F. Supp. 1388, 1397, 1410 (N.D. Cal. 1984), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 801 F.2d 1080, 1110 (9th Cir. 1986)); see Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 

1987) (allegations of increase in stress, tension, communicable diseases, and confrontations 

between inmates due to overcrowding states 8th Amendment claim). However, Plaintiff has not 

stated an Article III controversy for his allegations regarding inadequate ventilation; poor air 

circulation; high levels of lead and chemicals in the water; poor sanitation; roach and gnat 

infestation; exposed plumbing; sewage leakage in the pro-per phone room; and mold in the 

showers. Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and 

“Controversies.” U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show 

(1) an injury in fact, meaning an invasion of a legally protected interest which is both concrete and 

particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a sufficient causal 

connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury 

will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that he has suffered 

injury from these particular conditions of confinement. General grievances about conditions of 

confinement do not state an Article III case or controversy. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573–74 (“[A] 

plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to 

his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking 

relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not 

state an Article III case or controversy.”). In addition, Plaintiff’s vague allegation that there is 

exposed plumbing does not, without more, state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff 

does not explain how the exposed plumbing constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims regarding inadequate ventilation; poor air circulation; high levels 

of lead and chemicals in the water; poor sanitation; roach and gnat infestations; sewage leakage in 

the pro-per phone room; mold in the showers; and exposed plumbing are DISMISSED with leave 

Case 4:16-cv-01279-HSG Document 9 Filed 08/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to amend. Plaintiff may attempt to cure the identified deficiencies in an amended complaint by 

specifying how these particular conditions of confinement violated his constitutional rights, if he 

can do so in good faith.

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegation that he was assigned to a higher classification 

status than is appropriate in retaliation for filing civil lawsuits states a cognizable First 

Amendment retaliation claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005)

(“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 

elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.”). 

Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegation that he fears for his safety because prison 

officials retaliate against, beat, and murder mentally ill inmates fails to state a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading 

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege, with 

at least some degree of particularity, overt acts which Defendants engaged in that support 

Plaintiff’s claim. Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint suffers an additional deficiency. The complaint does not state a claim 

against the named defendants. Plaintiff has named as defendants Santa Clara County, or the Santa 

Clara County DOC, which is a department of Santa Clara County. To impose liability under 

Section 1983 against a municipal entity such as Santa Clara County for a violation of 

constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of 

which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts 

to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the 

moving force behind the constitutional violation. Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 

130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997); see Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 

Plaintiff does not allege any policy by Santa Clara County or the Santa Clara County DOC that 

Case 4:16-cv-01279-HSG Document 9 Filed 08/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

allegedly led to the constitutional violations. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to 

amend to cure the identified deficiency if he can do so in good faith. 

Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), all that is 

required is a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should list each legal claim separately. For each claim, Plaintiff 

should list the specific factual allegations supporting the claim and identify how each defendant 

caused or participated in the violation. It is not necessary for Plaintiff to cite case law or include 

legal argument. If Plaintiff is alleging municipal liability, Plaintiff must specify what policy led to 

the constitutional violation. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that he may only pursue claims for constitutional violations which 

have caused him injury; he may not sue generally about prison conditions that have not affected or 

will not affect him. 

Plaintiff is further cautioned that he should list his claims in the body of the amended 

complaint. The Court will not read through the exhibits to construe claims. Plaintiff is strongly 

encouraged to keep his statements concise and to omit irrelevant details. 

In addition, Plaintiff is informed that the Court is not a repository for Plaintiff’s evidence. 

Plaintiff should not file documentary evidence in support of his claims unless it is necessary for 

the resolution of a motion. 

C. Motion for Class Certification

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting certification as a class action. However, pro se

plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and adequately protect the 

interests of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Simon 

v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664–65 (9th Cir. 2008) (“courts have routinely adhered to the 

general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a 

representative capacity”) (citing cases); Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir.1962) 

(“a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to certify this case as a class action is DENIED. Plaintiff is 

limited to asserting claims for violations of his own civil rights and may not litigate claims on 

Case 4:16-cv-01279-HSG Document 9 Filed 08/01/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

behalf of other prisoners.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a class action is DENIED, and 

the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty (30) days of 

this order. The pleading must be simple and concise and must include the caption and civil case 

number used in this order (16-1279 HSG (PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the 

first page. Failure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result 

in the dismissal of this action. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights 

form along with his copy of this order. 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. “[A] 

plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the 

amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/1/2016

Case 4:16-cv-01279-HSG Document 9 Filed 08/01/16 Page 6 of 6