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.

Cyprian v. White

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

April 17, 2019

RANDOLPH CYPRIAN, Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL WHITE, et al., Defendants.

          SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND COMPLAINT

          J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff Randolph Cyprian, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated when he was sexually assaulted. However, plaintiff has not provided any description of the alleged violations except for conclusory statements that such violations occurred. Having reviewed and screened plaintiff's amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court declines to serve plaintiff's amended complaint because plaintiff has yet to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendants violated his constitutional rights. However, the Court provides plaintiff leave to file a second amended pleading by May 15, 2019, to cure the deficiencies identified herein.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff initially filed his complaint in January 2019. Dkt. 1. On February 22, 2019, the Court screened plaintiff's initial complaint and found it deficient. Dkt. 6. The Court ordered plaintiff to correct the deficiencies by March 22, 2019. Id. Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on March 6, 2019. Dkt. 7.

         In his amended complaint, plaintiff, who is currently housed at Airway Heights Corrections Center (“AHCC”), alleges that defendant Jo Hiles committed “custodial sexual misconduct and continued to pressure acts of sexual misconduct from plaintiff[]” while he was incarcerated at Washington Correction Center (“WCC”). Dkt. 7 at 12. Although it is not entirely clear from the amended complaint, it appears that plaintiff was placed in segregation and then subsequently transferred to the Olympic Correction Center (“OCC”) where he filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) report. Dkt. 7 at 12. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered emotional and physical harm caused by defendants. Dkt. 7 at 12.

         Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he was (1) sexually assaulted by defendant Jo Hiles; (2) denied access to the courts by defendant Germeau; (3) denied due process by defendants DePew and Gersdorf; (4) intimidated and harassed by defendants Hindershot, Davis, Bamer, Coleman, Walker, Santos, Finch, Capolla, Riggs, Jennings, Germeau, and Brown; and (5) retaliated against by defendants Santos and Germeau Dkt. 7. Plaintiff contends that defendant Daniel White is the superintendent of the WCC and that he placed plaintiff in segregation when he should have investigated the alleged sexual misconduct by defendant Hiles. Dkt. 7 at 11.

         Plaintiff requests an injunction “from any further harm done by the defendants, ” as well as $5 million in “nominative and punitive” damages for the “physical, mental and emotional damage done to [plaintiff] by the defendants.” Dkt. 7 at 4.

         DISCUSSION

         Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”), 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 the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).

         In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege that: (1) he suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first step in a § 1983 claim is therefore to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To satisfy the second step, a plaintiff must allege facts showing how individually named defendants caused, or personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).

         Plaintiff's first amended complaint does not sufficiently allege these claims, which will result in dismissal of his case if not corrected in a second amended complaint.

         I. Exhaustion

         Before a prisoner may bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must first exhaust all available administrative remedies. Under the PLRA,

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such ...

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.