(PC) Heim v. Doe ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER HEIM, 1:20-cv-00391-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE 13 vs. DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 14 JANE DOE, et al., (ECF No. 22.) 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 17 18 19 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Christopher Heim (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 22 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 23 commencing this action on March 11, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the 24 First Amended Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 13.) On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff 25 lodged a Second Amended Complaint which was filed by the court on January 4, 2021. (ECF 26 Nos. 16, 20.) On March 30, 2021, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint, with 27 leave to amend. (ECF No. 21.) On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint 28 which is now before the court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 1 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 3 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 4 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 5 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 7 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 8 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 9 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 10 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 11 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 12 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 14 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 15 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 16 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state 17 a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 18 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 19 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 20 conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 21 plausibility standard. Id. 22 III. SUMMARY OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 23 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. The 24 events at issue in the Third Amended Complaint allegedly took place at Corcoran State Prison 25 (CSP) in Corcoran, California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the 26 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff names as the sole 27 defendant Correctional Officer Rodriguez (3B Corcoran Kitchen Officer) (“Defendant”). 28 Plaintiff’s allegations follow: 1 Plaintiff was at CSP Facility 3A, Level III, when he got into a fight, after which he was 2 moved to CSP Facility 3B, Level 4, instead of being placed in administrative segregation and 3 being transferred to another prison within his needs. 4 Two weeks after he was on 3B Level 4, Plaintiff received a job ducat for the on-site 5 facility kitchen. Plaintiff reported to work on the day after orientation. The kitchen workers 6 finished feeding the inmate population. Plaintiff went into the back of the kitchen to put trays 7 through the washer when he felt something hit him in the head. He was being attacked by 8 multiple inmates. 9 Defendant C/O Rodriguez failed to do her rounds, failing to protect Plaintiff who was at 10 high risk when it was avoidable. Plaintiff was not supposed to be there in the first place. When 11 Plaintiff made it out to the dining hall door Defendant Rodriguez was on the computer doing 12 nothing. Plaintiff was taken to Kaweah Delta Hospital by ambulance received 4 staples on his 13 upper forehead, 4 stitches on his nose, and 3 stitches on the right side of his forehead, resulting 14 in psychological damage to his mind. 15 As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, trial by jury, and a temporary restraining 16 order. 17 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 18 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: 19 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to 20 be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 21 secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 22 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 24 [Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a method 25 for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 26 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman v. Houston 27 Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 28 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. 1 Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). “To the extent that the violation of a state law 2 amounts to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the 3 federal Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id. 4 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under 5 color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him or her of rights secured by the Constitution 6 or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 7 Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of 8 state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983, 9 ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act 10 which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 11 Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 12 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “The requisite causal connection may be 13 established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or 14 reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.” Preschooler II, 479 15 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743). This standard of causation “closely resembles 16 the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 17 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 18 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). 19 A. Failure to Protect – Eighth Amendment Claim 20 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 21 from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 22 2006). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide 23 prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. 24 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison 25 officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Id. at 833; 26 Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect 27 inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation 28 1 where prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. 2 E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. 3 To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were 4 “deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The 5 question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials, acting with deliberate 6 indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently “substantial risk of serious harm” to his future 7 health. Id. at 843 (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). The Supreme Court has 8 explained that “deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence . . . [but] 9 something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge 10 that harm will result.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. The Court defined this “deliberate indifference” 11 standard as equal to “recklessness,” in which “a person disregards a risk of harm of which he is 12 aware.” Id. at 836-37. 13 The deliberate indifference standard involves both an objective and a subjective prong. 14 First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Id. at 834. 15 Second, subjectively, the prison official must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate 16 health or safety.” Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995). 17 To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner may rely on circumstantial evidence; in 18 fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to establish knowledge. Farmer, 511 U.S. 19 at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995). 20 Here, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Rodriguez for failure to protect him 21 from the attack by other inmates. Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing by inference or 22 otherwise that Defendant Rodriguez knew Plaintiff was at a substantial risk of serious harm from 23 other inmates, or that an attack on Plaintiff was likely to occur, yet disregarded the risk to 24 Plaintiff. 25 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for failure to 26 protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 27 V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 1 For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable 2 claims in the Third Amended Complaint. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure, “[t]he court should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires.” However, 4 the Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the 5 Court. Plaintiff has now filed four complaints without stating any claims upon which relief may 6 be granted under § 1983. The court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any facts, based 7 upon the circumstances he challenges, that would state a cognizable claim under section 1983. 8 “A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.” Hartmann v. 9 CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013). The court finds that the deficiencies outlined above 10 are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore further leave to amend should not 11 be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 12 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 13 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e): 14 1. This case be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; and 15 2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 18 fourteen days from the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may 19 file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 21 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. 22 Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 23 (9th Cir. 1991)). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: October 30, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28