(PC) Peterson v. Leekie ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD KEMONI PETERSON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01348-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. FINDING THAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A 14 F. LEEKIE, et al., COGNIZABLE CLAIM 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE 17 CLAIM 18 ECF No. 16 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against defendants and alleges that they 22 violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they failed to address a watery floor that caused him 23 to slip and injure himself. ECF No. 16 at 4-5. As in my previous screening order, I find that 24 plaintiff has not stated cognizable § 1983 claims. See ECF No. 9. I now recommend this action 25 be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 26 27 28 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 As stated above, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to address a slippery floor that 3 caused him to fall and suffer an injury. ECF No. 16 at 4. He claims that he suffered one fall in 4 April 2021, and, even though plaintiff told defendants that the floor represented a danger and 5 received assurances that it would be dealt with, the problem persisted, and he fell again in 6 December 2021. Id. at 4. In my previous screening order, I informed plaintiff that slip-and-fall- 7 type allegations such as he has raised here do not give rise to a constitutional violation. See 8 LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff argues to the contrary, citing the 9 sustained failure to fix the slippery floor, ECF No. 16 at 6-7, but courts have routinely and 10 consistently held that such claims, even where defendants have notice of the problem, sound only 11 in negligence. See Collier v. Garcia, No. 17-CV-05841 LHK (PR), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12 16909, *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (collecting cases rejecting slip and fall claims, even where 13 plaintiff alleges that defendants had notice of the slippery conditions). 14 Accordingly, I now recommend this action be dismissed. No further chances to amend 15 are warranted, since plaintiff cannot state a viable claim without changing the fundamental basis 16 of his litigation. 17 It is RECOMMENDED that the amended complaint, ECF No. 16, be DISMISSED 18 without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 22 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 23 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 24 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 25 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 26 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 27 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ May 7, 2024 Q_——. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28