United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
who was an inmate at the Solano County Jail when he filed the
instant complaint, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee.
Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
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
“frivolous, malicious, or 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).
“is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984).
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are
‘based on indisputably meritless legal theories' or
whose ‘factual contentions are clearly
baseless.'” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d
639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S.
at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated
in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim,
however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual
basis. Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in
original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957)). “Failure to state a claim under § 1915A
incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context of
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680
F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order
to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a
complaint must contain more than “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it
must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
“‘[T]he pleading must contain something more . .
. than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a
suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of
action.'” Id. (alteration in original)
(quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed.
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint
under this standard, the court must accept as true the
allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. Co.
v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976)
(citation omitted), as well as construe the pleading in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts
in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen,
395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted).
complaint presents two claims, respectively asserting
violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, both
based on plaintiff's objection to the sharing of electric
razors among inmates at the Solano County Jail. Named as
defendants are the County Sheriff, the Mayor, and two jail
officers. Plaintiff alleges generally that requiring pretrial
detainees to use shared razors is unsanitary and poses
“an unreasonable risk of serious damage to one's
future health.” ECF No. 1 at 3. He alleges that
disinfection protocols for the electric razors are inadequate
and/or not adequately followed, and that inmates are being
exposed to blood-borne pathogens including HIV/AIDS and
Hepatitis C. Id. Plaintiff specifically alleges that
in January of 2017 two different officers rejected his
requests that a razor be properly disinfected. Id.
at 4. He alleges that “one detainee/inmate has had to
take antibiotics because he got some kind of fungus on his
face.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff seeks $50, 000,
000.00 in damages and an injunction requiring the provision
of disposable razors to all pretrial detainees at the Jail.
Id. at 8.
Plaintiff Lacks Standing
courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional
issues such as standing.” B.C. v. Plumas Unified
Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999)
(citation omitted). The Article III case or controversy
requirement limits federal courts' subject matter
jurisdiction by requiring that plaintiffs have standing.
Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for
Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464,
471 (1982). To have standing, a plaintiff must plead and
prove that he has suffered sufficient injury to satisfy the
“case or controversy” requirement of Article III
of the United States Constitution. Clapper v. Amnesty
Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (citations
omitted). To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff must
therefore allege: (1) an injury-in-fact that is concrete and
particularized, as well as actual or imminent; (2) that the
injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the
defendant; and (3) that the injury is redressable by a
favorable ruling. Monsato Co. v. Geertson Seed
Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149 (2010) (citation omitted);
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61
objections to Solano County Jail razor sterilization
practices do not support standing, because plaintiff has not
personally suffered any injury in fact. Plaintiff does not
allege that he suffered any injury or contracted any disease
due to his use of a shared razor, he merely complains that
his objections to the jail's sanitation practices were
ignored. The complaint asserts future harms that are entirely
speculative, and speculative future injury does not confer
standing. See Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409 (to have
standing based on future harm, plaintiff must face “a
credible threat of harm” that is “both real and
immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.”).
Plaintiff's allegation that another inmate experienced a
fungal infection would not give plaintiff standing even if
that infection were traceable to use of a shared razor.
See Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27 (3rd Cir.
1981) (“[A]n inmate does not have standing to sue on
behalf of his fellow prisoners. Rather, the prisoner must
allege a personal loss and seek to vindicate a deprivation of
his own constitutional rights.”)
same reason, plaintiff lacks standing to seek the requested
injunctive relief on behalf of all pretrial detainees at the
Jail. And the request for injunctive relief is moot as to
plaintiff himself, because he is no longer incarcerated at
the Jail. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1138
(9th Cir. 2013) (transfer from the facility at issue moots
claim for injunctive relief regarding conditions of
The Alleged Facts ...