United States District Court, E.D. California
RUSSELL S. GRANT, Plaintiff,
HEISOL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF NO. 9) CLERK TO CLOSE CASE
MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
September 6, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On February 13, 2017, this
Court dismissed Plaintiff's civil rights complaint with
leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff's first amended
complaint is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 9.) He
has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.)
No other parties have appeared.
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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. §
1983 provides a cause of action against any person who
deprives an individual of federally guaranteed rights
“under color” of state law. 42 U.S.C. §
1983. 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, 678 (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) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally 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, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but
nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short
of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran,
California, however his claims stem from events that began at
the Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”), a state
prison in Jamestown, California, and carried over to
Plaintiff's subsequent institutions.
names numerous Defendants: Officers Heisol, Wright, Osten,
Hernandez, and J. Delgado of SCC; Officer Gomez of California
Training Facility (“CTF”); Officers Burke and
Hall of Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”);
psychiatrist Dr. Maddox of SCC; Nurse Valera of SCC; Doe
Officers 1-2 of SCC, John Doe 7, a nurse or correctional
officer at SCC; John Doe 8, a psychiatrist at PBSP; Doe
Officer 9 of PBSP; Doe Officer 10 of CTF; and numerous John
Doe inmates housed at SCC and CTF.
allegations are as follows:
night of February 17, 2016, Plaintiff was housed in the
administrative segregation unit (“ad-seg”) of
SCC. Doe Officers 1 and 2 arrived at Plaintiff's cell and
Doe 1 told Plaintiff he was moving to another
cell. Plaintiff believes these Defendants did
not actually intend to move Plaintiff to another cell. Doe 1
shackled Plaintiff before he left the cell.
Plaintiff was in the hallway, Defendant Heisol stated to
Plaintiff, “You told ISU I had drugs!” Plaintiff
was confused by that statement. Two inmates began
aggressively shoving Plaintiff in the hallway in the
direction of an awaiting CDCR van. Plaintiff attempted to
resist, but could not because of the shackles. Next, two more
inmates each pulled out a prison knife. One inmate said,
“Don't make us[ ] use this on you.” Doe
Defendant 1, a correctional officer, placed Plaintiff in the
van. Defendant Hernandez drove the van to the main medical
building. Doe Defendant 1 and Hernandez hurried Plaintiff
into the building.
the medical building, four inmates attacked Plaintiff. Each
inmate grabbed one of Plaintiff's body parts. One inmate
pulled Plaintiff's pants down. Another brandished a
medical knife and stated, “You snitchin', I will
cut yo' d**k off.” Doe Defendant 7, a nurse or
correctional officer, did not stop the inmates from grabbing
the medical knife. As the inmates continued assaulting,
threatening, and intimidating Plaintiff, Defendants Heisol,
Hernandez, and Does 1 and 7 conspired to allow the inmates to
harm Plaintiff. Defendants knew that the inmates would harm
Plaintiff when they provided the inmates with knives. They
did not stop the inmates from attacking Plaintiff. Plaintiff
believes Defendant Heisol conspired with the other Defendants
because Heisol had been caught with drugs.
the attack Plaintiff was taken to Sonora Regional Hospital in
Sonora, California, “for a false medical reason”
written up by Doe 7.
February 21, 2016, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital
and returned to SCC. He was housed in “OHU, ”
which is in the main medical area. On February 22, 2016,
Plaintiff was returned to ad-seg. That day, Doe Defendant 8,
a correctional officer, telephoned Defendant Dr. Maddox. Dr.
Maddox arrived in ad-seg and told Plaintiff he was there
because an officer called him and he wanted to ask Plaintiff
some questions. Plaintiff told Dr. Maddox about the assault,
as well as the fact that drugs were injected into Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also described the intimidation he suffered and his
visits to the hospital. Dr. Maddox told Plaintiff he could
help get Plaintiff out of ad-seg by putting Plaintiff into a
program. Dr. Maddox conspired with other Defendants to be
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's health and
February 23, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to the PBSP
Mental Health/Suicide Program unit. The next day, Plaintiff
was seen by Doe Defendant 8, a psychiatrist, for an initial
evaluation. Plaintiff explained to Doe Defendant 8 that he
was not suicidal, and was manipulated into entering the
program. Doe Defendant 8 stated Plaintiff needed to remain in
the program for five days before he could be cleared.
Plaintiff's stay at PBSP, Defendants Hall and Burke would
not allow Plaintiff to shower. Burke continuously marked
Plaintiff down for false ...