Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110413_0000605.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-01 20:42:01
Document Index: 767107518

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1997']

| Philip Danny Craigie v. Gomez; Hia; Mcgee; Garza; Juarez; Roberts; Spence
Philip Danny Craigie v. Gomez; Hia; Mcgee; Garza; Juarez; Roberts; Spence
PHILIP DANNY CRAIGIE,PLAINTIFF,v.GOMEZ; HIA; MCGEE; GARZA; JUAREZ; ROBERTS; SPENCE, DEFENDANTS.
CDCR #v-00757,
ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b)
On September 15, 2010, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("Donovan") located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On December 29, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). See Dec. 29, 2010 Order at 4-5.
Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On January 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC").
As currently pleaded, it is clear, once again, that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
As he did in his original Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was provided a cell that was "contaminated" and Defendants refused to provide him with toilet paper for one day. (See FAC at 5-9.) Plaintiff claims violations of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and violations of the Eighth Amendment based on the same set of facts. The Supreme Court has indicated that when a broad due process violation is alleged, but a more specific amendment "provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection" against a particular sort of government behavior, "that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process,' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)); Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Court will analyze Plaintiff's condition of confinement claims under the Eighth Amendment standard set forth below. The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," imposes a duty on prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement and to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1993). However, every injury suffered by an inmate does not necessarily translate into constitutional liability for prison officials. Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir. 1996); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981) (noting that the U.S. Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons.").
In addition, when considering the conditions of confinement, the court should also consider the amount of time to which the prisoner was subjected to the condition. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686-87 (1978); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005); Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1258. Here, Plaintiff claims to have been exposed to unsanitary conditions in his cell and denied toilet paper for one day. (See FAC at 5-9.) While the conditions may be less than comfortable, Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that he was deprived the "minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that he suffered any injury as a result of the conditions alleged in his First Amended Complaint. While Plaintiff alleges injuries in the form of "grave and cross mental anguish," he has failed to allege any physical injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Thus, Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.