(PC) Johnson v. Flores ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01491-NONE-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 FLORES, 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Christopher Johnson is incarcerated at North Kern State Prison. (See Doc. 1 at 1.) 19 He alleges that on January 11, 2021, Defendant Flores placed him in a cell with another inmate 20 who turned out to have COVID-19. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant was thereby 21 deliberately indifferent to his health; and, he seeks compensatory damages as relief. (Id. at 3, 6.) 22 For the reasons set forth below, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 23 claims, or Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Therefore, Plaintiff 24 must show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 To have standing, a plaintiff “must show that [he] has suffered an ‘injury in fact,’ that 27 [his] injury is ‘fairly traceable’ to the [defendant’s] actions, and that [his] injury will likely be 28 ‘redressed’ by this” action. Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 554 (9th 1 Cir. 2003) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)). Injury in fact—the 2 “[f]irst and foremost of standing’s three elements”—is a constitutional requirement. Spokeo, Inc. 3 v. Robins, 578 U.S. 856 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “To establish 4 injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected 5 interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or 6 hypothetical.’” Id. (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). 7 Plaintiff fails to show that he has suffered an injury in fact. He contends that Defendant 8 placed him at risk of contracting COVID-19 back in January. (Doc. 1 at 3.) However, Plaintiff’s 9 allegations fail to show that he suffered actual, concrete harm, or that harm is imminent. Plaintiff 10 does not allege that he ever contracted COVID-19, and he does not allege that he is still at risk of 11 contracting COVID-19. On the latter point, Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief to address any 12 risk of contracting COVID-19; instead, he seeks only damages. (Id. at 6.) 13 To the extent Plaintiff’s claims are based on alleged mental or emotional injury, (see id. at 14 3), his claims are barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The statute provides that “[n]o 15 Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotional injury suffered 16 while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.” 17 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). As stated above, Plaintiff does not contend that he contracted COVID-19 18 or suffered any other physical injury, and he does not allege the commission of a sexual act. 19 Therefore, any claim for mental or emotional harm is barred. 20 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, or his 22 claims are barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff 23 to show cause in writing, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, why this action 24 should not be dismissed. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: November 8, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28