United States District Court, D. Idaho
SUCCESSIVE REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Nathan Nicholas Helburn is a prisoner proceeding pro se in
this civil rights action. The Court previously reviewed
Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
determined that it failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted, and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to
amend. (Initial Review Order, Dkt. 8.) The Court also mailed
a copy of General Order 342 to Plaintiff, to aid him in
drafting his amended complaint, and described some of the
requirements of that General Order.
has now filed an Amended Complaint, which omits some of
Plaintiff's earlier claims-such as his dehydration
claims-and omits a defendant. (Dkt. 10.) Though Plaintiff
states that he did not receive a copy of General Order 342
(see Dkt. 9 at 1), the Amended Complaint complies
with that General Order. Thus, the fact that Plaintiff did
not receive the General Order is not relevant to the
Court's review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Court retains its screening authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to remedy the
deficiencies in his initial complaint, and the Court will
dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
explained in the Initial Review Order, the Court must dismiss
a prisoner or in forma pauperis complaint-or any portion
thereof-that states a frivolous or malicious claim, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(d)(2) & 1915A(b).
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). A complaint fails to
state a claim for relief under Rule 8 if the factual
assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are insufficient
for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “[D]etailed factual
allegations” are not required, but a plaintiff must
offer “more than ... unadorned,
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). If the facts
pleaded are “merely consistent with a defendant's
liability, ” or if there is an “obvious
alternative explanation” that would not result in
liability, the complaint has not stated a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face. Id. at 678, 682
(internal quotation marks omitted).
brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights
statute. To state a plausible civil rights claim, a plaintiff
must allege a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused
by conduct of a person acting under color of state law.
Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir.
1991). To be liable under § 1983, “the defendant
must possess a purposeful, a knowing, or possibly a reckless
state of mind.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135
S.Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Negligence is not actionable under
§ 1983, because a negligent act by a public official is
not an abuse of governmental power but merely a
“failure to measure up to the conduct of a reasonable
person.” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327,
asserts that, in June 2018, he was moved to Medical Cell 9.
That cell initially was filthy: there was blood, feces, and
“food waste” on the walls, the floor was
“slimy, ” and the “mattress smelled like
urine.” (Dkt. 10 at 2.) Plaintiff spent 27 hours in the
cell before it was cleaned and was confined there for a total
of three days. (Id. at 2-3.)
because of his earlier dehydration as described in the
initial complaint, Plaintiff “was told to drink water
every hour.” (Id. at 3.) This advice caused
Plaintiff to suffer a “low-sodium seizure” after
three days in Medical Cell 9. During that seizure, Plaintiff
“hit his head causing a mild concussion and painful
neck and back injury attributed to a torn muscle.”
the next two months, Plaintiff periodically “was put on
pen and paper restriction and was unable to file a grievance
to recieve [sic] medical care for [his] neck and back
injury.” (Id.) Under this restriction, which
was allegedly the result of collaboration between Defendants
Wilson and Barry, Plaintiff was “only allowed paperwork
1 hour a day in a cramp[ed] phone booth.”
(Id.) Plaintiff also states he was unable to access
his legal work for ten days.
has not plausibly alleged that any specific act, or failure
to act, on the part of Defendants Wilson or Barry violated
Plaintiff's civil rights. First, being held in a
temporarily filthy cell, over 27 hours, is not the type of
“intolerably cruel” condition that ...