United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF NOS. 19, 20) FOURTEEN (14)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
and Recommendations Following Screening
Steven Griffiths (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 10, 2015. (ECF No.
25, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's second amended
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it
stated cognizable claims for failure to protect in violation
of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Ramirez, but failed
to state a cognizable claim against any other defendants. The
Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a third
amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to
proceed only on his cognizable claims. (ECF No. 20.)
22, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to
proceed only on his cognizable claims. (ECF No. 21.)
Accordingly, the Court issues the following Findings and
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
is currently incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional
Facility. The events in the complaint are alleged to have
occurred at Kern Valley State Prison and California Substance
Abuse Treatment facility and State Prison (CSTAF/SP).
Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Acting Chief
Deputy Warden R. Tolson; and (2) Acting Captain, K. Ramirez.
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
31, 2013, Plaintiff was seen by the classification committee
to determine Plaintiff's safety issues. The warden had
granted/modified an appeal and directed staff to convene a
committee hearing to determine Plaintiff's single cell
needs. Defendants were committee members. Defendant K.
Ramirez had interviewed Plaintiff before the committee
meeting, on four occasions, concerning the history of in cell
assaults. Plaintiff provided the names of four cellmates who
had previously assaulted Plaintiff in his cell and gave
Defendant Ramirez the injury reports from the assaults.
Plaintiff provided Defendant Ramirez documentation from other
inmates about intolerable conditions within Plaintiff's
cell due to Plaintiff's colostomy and urinary
catheterizations. (ECF No. 19, p. 4.) The committee
incorrectly and falsely stated that in cell assaults has not
occurred and continued to double cell Plaintiff. Plaintiff
was subjected to further in cell abuse and injury from
inmates who were forced into Plaintiff's cell.