Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Claiborne v. Schwarzenegger

September 15, 2008

DENNIS GERALD CLAIBORNE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a ". . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Schwarzenegger, N. Grannis, T. Felker, D. Christie, T. Robertson, M. Wright, M.D. McDonald, the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Does one through ten. Plaintiff states that he brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated disabled inmates.*fn1 Plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment claims based on alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs and seeks prospective injunctive relief and $25,000,000.00 in damages for "past, present, and future pain & suffering.".

Plaintiff states that, when an alarm is activated, he is required to "bend, squat, and sit on the ground" or remain seated. He further states that when an alarm was activated on March 15, 2008, he was standing near a trash can and "designated White inmate table" and, instead of getting on the ground or sitting at the table, he "chose to sit down immediately on the trash can to get out of the officer's way." He asserts that he could not sit at the table because he is Black and sitting at the White inmate table would have been against "prison politics." According to plaintiff, all "mobility impaired" inmates, including plaintiff,*fn2 were ordered to get on the ground. He states that, when he asked for assistance to get down to the ground, "he was met with laughter" and that he was told by "attending officers" that they were not required to help him get on the ground.

Following this incident, plaintiff filed a request for reasonable accommodation "contesting the order to get down on the ground." He states that on March 27, 2008, he was interviewed by correctional sergeant Marsh and correctional counselor Jackson and "learned that the CDCR's provisions for ADA inmates in these circumstances is 'OP #612" which "affirmatively assert that correctional staff must help ADA inmates down, if they cannot get down on their own." Plaintiff adds that "staff members also confirmed that the policy was to allow ADA inmates to sit at tables." He states that Marsh "fraudulently stated on the record that the Plaintiff was standing next to a table and chose to stand instead of sitting at the table." According to plaintiff, his request for accommodation was denied based on this lie.

Plaintiff filed a second level grievance on April 8, 2008, which was denied on April 15, 2008, by defendant Robertson. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Robertson "chose to continue the sergeant's response by asserting that Plaintiff Claiborne was standing and using that intentional lie to deny the Plaintiff's request." He claims that defendants Wright, McDonald, and Felker were made aware of the situation and "chose to approve, continue, and/or tacitly authorize the fraudulent staff responses." Plaintiff states that, while defendants "conceded that 'he may ask for assistance from staff if necessary,'" defendants' conduct violated the Eighth Amendment. He asserts that defendants should be required to provide him the accommodation of "being allowed to sit in seats or stand out of the way."

II. DISCUSSION

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment ". . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with "food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety." Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official's act or omission must be so serious such that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities; and (2) subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must have a "sufficiently culpable mind." See id.

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury, or risks of serious injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental health needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). An injury or illness is sufficiently serious if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the ". . . unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). Factors indicating seriousness are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the condition is worthy of comment; (2) whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner's daily activities; and (3) whether the condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Claims for Prospective Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff asserts that defendants should be ordered to provide him the accommodation in the future of "being allowed to sit in seats or stand out of the way" if an alarm is called. However, according to the facts alleged by plaintiff, current policy already provided that disabled inmates may sit at nearby tables. Thus, the prospective accommodation he seeks is already in place. To the extent plaintiff's claim is based on the his allegation that defendants denied his accommodation request based on the "fraudulent" belief that he was standing next to a table when the alarm sounded on March 15, 2008, the facts alleged by plaintiff indicated that he was, in fact, standing next to a table but nonetheless ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.