(PC)Guzman v. Marshall et al, No. 1:2012cv00828 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action proceed on Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed October 15, 2013, against Defendant Snyder for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; Eighth Amendment claims agai nst Defendants Warden Marshall and Officer Frazier be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and Defendant Marshall and Frazier be DISMISSED from this action; re 13 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/4/2013. Objections to F&R due by 12/9/2013 (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAFAEL GUZMAN, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. JOHN MARSHALL, et. al., Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-00828-LJO-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FROM ACTION [ECF No. 13] Plaintiff Rafael Guzman is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed 19 on October 15, 2013. 20 I. 21 SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 24 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 26 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 27 28 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 1 1 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 2 do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 3 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 4 participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 5 Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 6 Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 7 liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 8 higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 9 screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow 10 the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 11 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 12 possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely 13 consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 14 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 15 III. 16 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS On January 29, 2011, at approximately 8:20 a.m., officer Frazier approached Petitioner and 17 18 informed he was allowed to go out to the yard. Plaintiff exited his cell, and officer Snyder searched 19 him in the holding cages. Plaintiff was then led down a hallway out of the cell block. Plaintiff proceeded to make a right turn which would have placed him in the proper exercise 20 21 yard; however, at that point officer Snyder ordered him to make a left turn to the group yard. Plaintiff 22 immediately informed officer Snyder that he was a member of the Southern Group and his life would 23 be in danger if he was placed in the Northern yard group. Officer Snyder told Plaintiff that she was going to “see what he was made of and thereafter 24 25 shoved [Plaintiff] out into the Northern group yard.” Plaintiff alleges officer Snyder knowingly and 26 deliberately placed his life in jeopardy. Immediately after Plaintiff was forced onto the Northern yard 27 he was attacked and shot in the back by a big block gun. 28 /// 2 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. 4 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from 5 inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). 6 Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with 7 food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 8 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have a 9 duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833; Hearns 10 v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect inmates 11 from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation where prison 12 officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Farmer, 13 511 U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. 14 15 Eighth Amendment Violation-Failure to Protect The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim against Defendant Snyder for the failure to protect him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 16 B. Supervisory Liability 17 Plaintiff contends Warden John Marshall is liable for the failure to supervise and his own 18 misconduct in failing to ensure that his subordinate staff are not only fully trained, but also disciplined 19 for their acts. Under section 1983, Plaintiff must prove that the defendants holding supervisory 20 positions personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 21 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or 22 her own misconduct. Iqbal, at 1948-49. A supervisor may be held liable for the constitutional 23 violations of his or her subordinates only if he or she “participated in or directed the violations, or 24 knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 25 1989); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark County School 26 Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th 27 Cir. 1997). 28 3 1 Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any allegations supporting the existence of a supervisory Plaintiff contends that “once discovery is ordered this court 2 liability claim against Warden Marshall. 3 will see that there is in fact a pattern of this widespread misconduct that has previously resulted in 4 constitutional violations such as in the instant case.” However, Plaintiff is advised that a complaint, 5 even pro se, must “raise the right to relief above the speculative level” by alleging facts which create 6 “a reasonable expectation” that discovery will reveal the evidence necessary to prove his claim. Bell 7 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-556 (2007). The only basis for such a claim would be 8 respondeat superior, which is precluded under section 1983. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a 9 cognizable claim against Warden Marshall. 10 C. Officer Frazier 11 Plaintiff contends that officer Frazier is equally liable for her failure to protect him from the 12 assault based on her failure to intervene. Plaintiff alleges in vague and conclusory terms that 13 Defendant Frazier was in close proximity to the violation and wholly failed to intervene to protect 14 Plaintiff. However, nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth officer Frazier’s knowledge of any 15 potential harm and failure to act beyond advising Plaintiff that that he was allowed to go out to yard, 16 which is insufficient. Under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 17 participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 18 The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional 19 right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s 20 affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the 21 deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 22 Therefore, to state a cognizable claim, Plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative 23 act or omission that demonstrates a violation of his constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff fails to link 24 Frazier to any affirmative act or omission, he fails to state a cognizable claim. 25 III. 26 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 27 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint sets forth a cognizable claim against Defendant Snyder for 28 failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but does not state any other claims for relief 4 1 under section 1983. Plaintiff has previously been notified of the deficiencies and given leave to 2 amend with assistance from the Court. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint and has failed to 3 correct the deficiencies in his pleadings. The Court recommends that the non-cognizable claims be 4 dismissed, with prejudice. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Based on the 5 foregoing, 6 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 7 1. 8 against Defendant Snyder for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2. 9 10 This action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed October 15, 2013, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Warden Marshall and officer Frazier be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim; and 11 3. Defendants Marshall and Frazier be dismissed from this action. 12 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 14 being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the 15 Court. 16 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 17 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: November 4, 2013 _ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
