Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01914-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac
Defendant
Noel Rodriguez
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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR ISAAC,

Defendants

Case No. 1:11 cv 01914 AWI GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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 

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). 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 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 2

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the Calipatria State Prison, brings this civil rights action against 

Defendant Isaac, employed by the CDCR as a correctional counselor at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff 

claims that Defendant Isaac failed to protect Plaintiff, resulting in an attack upon Plaintiff by 

known enemies.

Plaintiff alleges that he was a member of the South Side gang, which follows orders from 

another Hispanic prison gang, the Mexican Mafia. Plaintiff had been “having problems” with 

both of these groups. Plaintiff had been engaged in physical violence with three of his cellmates 

over the years, all of them South Side gang members. 

On March 12, 2008, Plaintiff was informed by Correctional Counselor O’Bailey that he 

would be attending a classification hearing. The next day, Plaintiff was informed by the 

classification committee that South Siders wanted to kill Plaintiff and Plaintiff should be placed 

in protective custody for his safety. Plaintiff refused protective custody. The committee decided 

to retain Plaintiff in the Security Housing Unit (SHU) due to security concerns. Plaintiff was 

assigned to SHU for an indeterminate term. 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 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 3

On August 6, 2008, Defendant Isaac informed Plaintiff that she had confidential 

information that South Side gang members wanted to kill Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff should be 

placed in protective custody. Plaintiff again refused protective custody. The following day, the 

committee informed Plaintiff that no security concerns existed. The committee again asked 

Plaintiff if any security concerns existed, and Plaintiff said no. The committee then directed that 

Plaintiff be transferred to Corcoran. 

In November 2008, Plaintiff arrived at Corcoran. The classification committee released 

Plaintiff to general population. On June 1, 2009, Plaintiff was attacked and stabbed by two 

South Side gang members. On August 5, 2009, the classification committee decided that 

security concerns do exist, and that Plaintiff should never have been released to general 

population. 

A. Failure to Protect

The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to 

guarantee the safety of inmates, which has been interpreted to include a duty to protect prisoners. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th

Cir. 2005). A prisoner seeking relief for an Eighth Amendment violation must show that the 

officials acted with deliberate indifference to the threat of serious harm or injury to an inmate. 

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9

th Cir. 2002). “Deliberate indifference” has 

both subjective and objective components. A prison official must “be aware of facts from which 

the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and . . . must also draw 

the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Liability may follow only if a prison official “knows 

that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take 

reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. 

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts from which an inference could be drawn that Isaac 

knew of a specific harm to Plaintiff and disregarded that harm. Plaintiff concludes that Isaac is 

liable because he was attacked by inmates associated with the South Side gang. The only 

specific conduct charged to Isaac, however, is the allegation that Issac asked Plaintiff if he had 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 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 4

any safety concerns, and that Plaintiff said he did not. There are no facts alleged that create an 

inference from which Isaac could have inferred that Plaintiff was at risk. Plaintiff’s allegations 

clearly indicate that Plaintiff himself repeatedly told the committee that he had no security 

concerns. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that Isaac was aware of a specific harm to 

Plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit recently held that inmates of opposite gangs placed in a cell with 

each other, with nothing more, fails to satisfy the Eighth Amendment’s standard that prison 

official must be aware of a specific risk to an inmate. Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of 

America,714 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). The facts alleged suggest that although Plaintiff did fear 

for his safety, he never communicated that to correctional officials. There was no specific 

information that Defendant knew from which she could draw an inference that Plaintiff was 

subjected to particular threat. 

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 05/08/14 Page 4 of 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 5

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:11-cv-01914-AWI-EPG Document 14 Filed 05/08/14 Page 5 of 5