United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
("EOCI"), brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a separate Order, the Court has
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. However, for the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2).
alleges that Defendants left a "metal crow"
unsecured in a general population area of EOCI. He appears to
allege that as a result, another inmate, upon finding the
instrument, used it to hit Plaintiff in the back resulting in
injury. Plaintiff asserts that this violates his Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,
and he seeks both declaratory relief and $100, 000 in
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity, officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if
the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). In order to state a claim,
Plaintiff's Complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter which, when accepted as true, gives rise to a
plausible inference that defendants violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 554, 556-57 (2007). "Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678.
for failure to state a claim is proper if it appears beyond
doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claims that would entitle him to relief. Ortez v.
Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1996);
Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274
(9th Cir. 1993). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally and
affords him the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d
officials have a duty ... to protect prisoners from violence
at the hands of other prisoners." Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal citation
omitted). The failure to protect inmates from attacks by
other inmates may violate the Eighth Amendment when: (1) the
deprivation alleged is "objectively, sufficiently
serious;" and (2) the prison officials had a
"sufficiently culpable state of mind," acting with
deliberate indifference. Id. at 834.
"[D]eliberate indifference entails something more than
mere negligence . [but] is satisfied by something less than
acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or
with knowledge that harm will result." Id. at
case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "were
deliberately indifferent ... by leaving a metal crow
unsecured in a general population area and failing to protect
Plaintiff from being assaulted by another inmate."
Complaint (#2), p. 3. Plaintiff's allegations suggest
that one or more of the Defendants negligently failed to
secure a crowbar at the prison, and that another inmate later
discovered the unsecured crowbar and used it to assault
Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff's Complaint contains a
conclusory allegation of deliberate indifference, this is
insufficient to state a valid claim for pleading purposes.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Where Plaintiff makes no
allegations that any Defendant acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind in failing to secure the crowbar and
protect him from another inmate, he fails to state a valid
Eighth Amendment claim.
addition, a plaintiff "must plead that each defendant,
through the official's own individual actions, has
violated the Constitution." Id. at 676. In this
case, none of Plaintiff's allegations are directed at any
Defendant's individual actions. As a result, he fails to
describe how any named Defendant personally participated in
the Eighth Amendment deprivation he pleads. For all of these
reasons, the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
Complaint (#2) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Should Plaintiff wish to proceed with this action, he must
file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above
within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is
advised that failure to file an amended complaint shall
result in the dismissal of this proceeding, with ...