Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Coleman v. Frauenheim

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 2, 2018

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, et al., Defendants.



         Plaintiff Anthony Coleman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on September 25, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)

         I. Screening Requirement and Standard

         The 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); 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, 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).

         To 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.

         II. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) in Coalinga, California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Warden Scott Frauenheim; (2) Secretary Scott Kernan, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); (3) Mike Rainwater, PVSP Correctional Plant Manager II; (4) A. S. Munoz, PVSP Fire Chief; (5) Ifoema Ogbuehi, PVSP Nurse Practitioner; (6) L. Macias, PVSP Correctional Officer; (7) A. Borders, PVSP Correctional Officer; and (8) W. Yang, PVSP Correctional Officer.

         Claim I

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Kernan and Frauenheim have a duty to house inmates in a safe living environment. Defendant Rainwater and all other defendants were aware of leaking ceilings that caused cell and general prison-area flooding and roof damage, including mold. Defendants Rainwater and Munoz received reports during the course of their duties of leaking ceilings and flooding throughout PVSP and have maintenance and repair logs.

         Plaintiff further alleges that Facility Bravo Yard Education Department was shut down due to ceiling leaks and excessive flooding. Facility Charlie Yard Kitchen was shut down due to ceiling leaks and roof damage. All buildings and housing units on Bravo Yard leak, causing inmates to wake up to puddles of water in their cells requiring serious clean-up procedures during the rainy season.

         On January 12, 2017, while cell feeding due to the Bravo Yard Kitchen being flooded with roof-leaking damages, Plaintiff left his cell (Building 5, Cell 105) and slipped and fell in a puddle of water from the leaking ceiling. No. “Wet Floor” signs were posted. Plaintiff landed on his back and left hip, causing injury at approximately 1705.

         Defendants Macias, Borders, and Yang were the building officers and were aware of the rain puddles from the ceiling leaks, but did nothing to maintain a safe environment by ensuring the floors were mopped before Plaintiff was released for his evening meal.

         Defendant Borders ensures that the building porters put up mops and cleaning supplies, including “Wet Floor” signs at 1700 to 1830 to make sure that all of the cleaning supplies are accounted for and then allows the inmate workers to make them ...

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.