The opinion of the court was delivered by: CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING
CLAIMS WITH AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND FOR SERVICE OF
Plaintiff Eddie J. Streeter, Jr., is a prisoner of the State of
California who is confined at the California Medical Facility at
Vacaville (CMF). He has filed this civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Venue is proper in this district because the acts complained of
occurred when Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Santa Clara
County Main Jail (SCCMJ), which is in Santa Clara County.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Plaintiff alleges that SCCMJ officials, employed by the Santa
Clara County Department of Corrections (DOC), deliberately placed
him in a cell with a violent and mentally ill inmate and ignored
his ongoing expressions of concern for his personal safety in
retaliation for his having objected to his housing placement.
Plaintiff was attacked by his cellmate and stabbed three times in
the face. Plaintiff alleges that jail officials deliberately
refused to come to his aid in a timely manner, and when they
arrived they could not enter his cell immediately because they had refused to respond to his ongoing complaints
that the lock on his cell door did not work properly and placed
him in danger. Jail officials also delayed Plaintiff's
transportation to Santa Clara County Valley Medical Center (VMC),
stopping along the way to conduct personal business. After
treatment at VMC, which included receiving thirty-seven sutures,
Plaintiff was returned to SCCMJ, but jail officials deliberately
refused to comply with the doctor's orders to place Plaintiff in
the hospital ward and provide appropriate follow-up care.
Plaintiff pursued his claims through the DOC administrative
grievance process and also filed a claim with the Santa Clara
County Employee Services Agency, Department of Risk
Management/Insurance Division, which was rejected. He also
contacted the California Inspector General's Office and was
informed that they could not pursue a claim on his behalf.
In this action, Plaintiff alleges the violation of his First
and Eighth Amendment rights and supplemental State tort law
claims. He seeks declaratory relief and damages.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of State law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
"`[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Terracom v. Valley National Bank,
49 F.3d 555, 558 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Pro se pleadings must be liberally
construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,
699 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff states cognizable claims for retaliation, deliberate
indifference to safety needs and deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. The Court also will assert jurisdiction
over Plaintiff's supplemental State law tort claims. 28 U.S.C.
Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under §
1983 only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant
proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected
right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on
the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant
whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a
constitutional deprivation. Id. at 633. Sweeping conclusory
allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead "set
forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's"
deprivation of protected rights. Id. at 634.
Of the numerous Defendants Plaintiff names, the only ones who
have been linked directly to his allegations are Classification
Committee members Robinson, Calderone and Osborn, and "Doe 6," a
Custody Officer referred to as "Cowboy." Plaintiff alleges that
he told these Defendants of his concerns for his safety and asked to be rehoused but they refused to do
so. Accordingly, his claims against these Defendants are
cognizable. As discussed below, however, the Court cannot order
that Defendant Doe 6 be served with the complaint until Plaintiff
has identified him by name.
Plaintiff has named four individual Defendants who are not
linked directly to the allegations in the body of the complaint.
These Defendants are SCCMJ Custody Sgt. Rooks, VMC Nurse Merna,
VMC Nurse Victoria and Ted Althausen of the Santa Clara Country
Employee Services Agency, Risk Management Division. Accordingly,
claims against these Defendants must be DISMISSED without
prejudice. If Plaintiff can in good faith assert constitutionally