Ronquillo v. CDCR ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GABRIEL A. RONQUILLO, 11 Case No. 23-cv-04581 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO 13 v. AMEND 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state inmate, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 against the “CDCR Administration,” the prison chaplain, and officers at San Quentin State 20 Prison (“SQSP”) where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. Dkt. No. 1. This matter was 21 reassigned to the undersigned on September 25, 2023. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff’s motion for 22 leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate order. Dkt. No. 5. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 4 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 10 Plaintiff first claims that on September 20, 2022, he was seriously injured on 11 “Group Yard #1” when he was stabbed 55 times by an inmate. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. He 12 claims that the “gunner” on duty at the time failed to “observe and perform within the 13 scope of training amounting to inexcusable neglect” when he observed the incident “begin 14 in the rear of yard… yet allowed it to proceed for over one minute.” Id. Under a second 15 claim, Plaintiff alleges that on January 14, 2023, the prison chaplain, Father Manuel 16 Chavira, placed him in a “group setting scenario.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff was escorted by the 17 “on duty tier officer” to the East Block Chapel, where he was again seriously injured by an 18 inmate who stabbed him six times. Id. at 3. Plaintiff seeks damages, including punitive. 19 Id. 20 The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to 21 guarantee the safety of prisoners. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 824, 832 (1994). In 22 particular, prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of 23 other prisoners. Id. at 833; Cortez v. Skol, 776 F. 3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015); Hearns v. 24 Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect 25 inmates from attacks by other inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates 26 the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, 1 indifferent to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A prison official is 2 deliberately indifferent if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or 3 safety by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Id. at 837. Allegations in a pro se 4 complaint sufficient to raise an inference that the named prison officials knew that plaintiff 5 faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take 6 reasonable measures to abate it state a failure-to-protect claim. See Hearns, 413 F.3d at 7 1041-42 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847). 8 Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim against the 9 “on duty gunner” for “A & B Group Yard in East Block” for his failure to protect Plaintiff 10 from an inmate attack which he observed and delayed intervening. However, Plaintiff’s 11 claim based on the second attack that occurred on January 14, 2023, is deficient because 12 there are insufficient factual allegations to indicate that the “on duty tier officer” and 13 Father Chavira knew that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm, perhaps because 14 they were aware of the prior attack in September 2022, and disregarded that risk by failing 15 to take reasonable measures to abate it. Without sufficient facts, Plaintiff fails to satisfy 16 the second element for an Eighth Amendment claim, i.e., that Defendants were 17 subjectively, deliberately indifferent to a known risk that Plaintiff would be attacked by an 18 inmate during Chapel. He shall be granted leave to amend to attempt to state sufficient 19 facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Chavira and the “duty tier 20 officer.” 21 Plaintiff names the “CDCR Administration” as a Defendant and seeks damages 22 against this entity. The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a 23 state by its own citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign 24 state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985); Alabama v. Pugh, 25 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 676-77 (1974). In addition to 26 suits against the state, Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to suits against a state 1 Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to 11th 2 Amendment immunity). Accordingly, the claim against the CDCR Administration must 3 be dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 4 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 7 1. The claim against the CDCR is DISMISSED with prejudice as barred by the 8 Eleventh Amendment. The Clerk shall terminate the CDCR as a party to this action. 9 2. The claim based on the January 14, 2023 incident against Defendants 10 Chavira and the “on duty tier officer” is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within 11 twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended 12 complaint to correct the deficiencies discussed above. Plaintiff should also continue to 13 ascertain the identities of the unnamed Defendants, i.e., the “gunner” and “duty tier 14 officer” in the amended complaint. Plaintiff states that he has been attempting to gather 15 “all pertinent name(s) of defendants to no avail.” Dkt. No. 4 at 4. Plaintiff is advised to 16 reach out to the litigation coordinator at SQSP for assistance in this matter. If he receives 17 no response, he may move for a court order to proceed with discovery. 18 The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this 19 order, Case No. 23-cv-04581 BLF (PR), and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on 20 the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on 21 the form in order for the action to proceed. The amended complaint supersedes the 22 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. Of San 23 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in an 24 amended complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named in an amended 25 complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 26 Cir.1992). 1 || will result in the dismissal with prejudice of the claim 2 for failure to state a claim, 2 || without further notice to Plaintiff. This action will then proceed solely on the 3 || September 20, 2022 incident against the “gunner.” 4 4, The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of 5 || this order to Plaintiff. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 |) Dated: _ January 24, 2024 fenfhacncan BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 9 10 11 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 25 PRO-SE\BLFICR 231045 81 Ronquillo éwtta 26 27