ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PLACE CASE UNDER SEAL Docs. 5, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Doc. 4
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED Doc. 1
I. Procedural History, Screening Requirement, and Standard
On October 17, 2011, Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences," Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
While prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, the pleading standard is now higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Under § 1983, plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendantpersonally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of constitutional or other federal rights by those acting under color of state law. E.g., Patel v. Kent School Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 2011); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. For eachdefendant named, plaintiff must show a causal link between the violation of his rights and an action or omission of the defendant. Iqbal,129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009). There is norespondeat superior liability under § 1983, and each defendant may only be held liable for misconduct directly attributed to him or her. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009).
II. Allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint
In Plaintiff's complaint, he names Defendants Matthew Cate, Secretary for California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"); and K. Allison, Warden at Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility ("CSATF"). Compl. at 1-5, Doc. 1.
Plaintiff is housed within the Sensitive Needs Yard ("SNY") at CSATF. Id. at 5. Plaintiff states that the CDCR has deliberately allowed "gang" members to exist and operate within the SNY. Id. (quotations in original). Plaintiff states that he is suffering an ongoing constant threat of violence by the "PC Gang." Id. Plaintiff has been assaulted at Pleasant Valley State Prison, Salinas Valley State Prison, Kern Valley State Prison, and CSATF. Id. Plaintiff has been assaulted by staff due to staff disseminating information to other staff that Plaintiff is a "snitch" and "child molester." Id. (quotations in original). In April 2011, Plaintiff was subjected to a threat of assault by C/O Longoria. Id. at 6. On June 30, 2011, Plaintiff was approached by C/O Longoria who told Plaintiff he received word from C/O Torres that Plaintiff likes to snitch on correctional officers; that Plaintiff was a child molester; and that he should dump Plaintiff out of his wheelchair. Id. After this encounter, Plaintiff did not go to receive his evening meal for three days. Id. Plaintiff has requested "PC" status but has only been assigned to the SNY. Id. The SNY is infested with "PC Gang" members, i.e., "TwoFivers," "3-Flowers," "Independent Riders," "Northern Riders" etc. Id.
Defendant Cate was aware of the "gang" problem with the SNY and was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of Plaintiff. Id. at 5. Defendant Cate had knowledge of the complained conditions and failed to order an investigation of "PC gangs." Id. at 8. Defendant Cate is failing to comply with Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3341.5 (placement in protective housing if inmate is not documented as a member or an affiliate of a prison gang).
Defendant Allison was aware of the "gang" problem with the SNY, was aware of Plaintiff's complaints, and was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of Plaintiff. Id. The CDCR has failed to protect Plaintiff and inmates within SNY. Id. at 7.
Plaintiff seeks a injunctive relief and damages. Id. at 4.
III. Legal Standard and Analysis for Plaintiff's Claims
A. Eighth Amendment Failure ...