Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110207_0001956.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 02:24:54
Document Index: 117856832

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915']

| Kenneth A. Smith v. Parole Division C.D.C.
KENNETH A. SMITH PLAINTIFF,v.PAROLE DIVISION C.D.C., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ORDER
Kenneth Smith, formerly confined at the Sacramento County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for the case to remain in this district. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
Plaintiff has requested leave to proceedin forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dckt. No. 2. Plaintiff's application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, the request will be granted.
II. Motion for Case to Remain in Eastern District
Plaintiff has filed a brief asking that this case be retained in this district. Dckt. No. 5. No defendant has appeared and thus no motion to transfer the case is pending. The motion will accordingly be denied as unnecessary and premature.
The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it does not state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff alleges that, while incarcerated at the California Medical Facility, he was in an "altercation" with another inmate named Orolee Brown. Dckt. No. 1 at 3. Mr. Brown was paroled on the same day as plaintiff and rode the same bus to Sacramento from Vacaville, "near" plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff regards it as inappropriate that Mr. Brown -- "a guy [he] fought" -- was transported with him to Sacramento. Id.
A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment where he or she deprives a prisoner of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir. 2010); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect an inmate from attack by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation where prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S.at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. To state such an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must allege facts showing that (1) the defendant prison official's conduct deprived him or her of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities and (2) that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner's health or safety. Id. at 834. To show deliberate indifference, the prisoner must allege that the defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; "the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Id. at 837. A prison official may thus be free from liability if he or she did not know of the risk or took reasonable action in response to the risk. Id. at 844.
Plaintiff's complaint is devoid of factual allegations from which the court could infer that any defendant knew that Mr. Brown posed a risk to plaintiff's safety. Plaintiff does not even allege that such a risk existed; the mere fact that the two inmates fought in 2002 does not imply that Mr. Brown posed a risk of harm to plaintiff on the ride to Sacramento.
Further, plaintiff has named only state agencies as defendants ("Parole Division C.D.C.," "C.M.F. State Prison Facility," and "Department of Corrections"). These agencies are not "persons" under § 1983 and thus may not be sued under that statute. Gillbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Will v. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989)).
Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences, 4 the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. "The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): 'A party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing party.' Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in an amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no "buckshot" complaints).
2. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled "First Amended Complaint." Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal.