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.

Johnson v. Sherman

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 23, 2019

REGINALD JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
STUART SHERMAN, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 1]

         Plaintiff Reginald Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed July 17, 2019.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         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 on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         The allegations in the complaint deal with conditions at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”) Plaintiff names Stuart Sherman (Warden at SATF), Richard Milan (Supervisor of Building Trades at SATF), and J. Collins (Associate Warden for Business Services at SATF), as Defendants.

         SATF was originally constructed approximately 20 years ago. On information and belief, SATF has not undergone any rehabilitation, modification or significant repair since being built.

         SATF consists of seven separate yards, each having a design capacity of approximately 500 inmates. Plaintiff is housed at a level two Special Needs Yard (SNY), and there are three separate housing buildings on F-Yard. In addition, each F-Yard contains a separate kitchen and dining facility.

         On December 27, 2018, Plaintiff found a foreign object in his food tray, and previously had contaminated water fall from the ceiling into his food tray and on his head. Plaintiff informed the officer working the dining hall that the foreign object was in his tray.

         California is an area that is prone to suffer earthquakes and is an area that receives rain.

         Plaintiff has been informed, believes and thereon alleges that SATF is built with the use of defective material or methods of construction, and any and all repairs are made with the use of substandard materials and/or substandard methods of construction, resulting in ineffective repairs.

         Defendants Sherman, Collins and Milan have a statutory and constitutional duty to protect Plaintiff from risk of injury, while he is in the facility F dining hall caused by: (1) suspended ceiling tiles system, or parts thereof, falling onto Plaintiff; (2) electrocution; (3) consumption of contaminated food and drinks; and (4) exposure to mold. Defendants have consciously neglected the physical plant at SATF.

         During the rainy season, there is continuous flooding in the dining facility, the visiting facility, the educational facility, the housing unit common areas and the cells themselves. Inmates often awake to the sound of rain actually coming into the cells. Many of the ceiling tiles in the dining facility, each of which is ...


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.