United States District Court, D. Idaho
MICHAEL E. BOSSE, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY CHIEF WARDEN RANDY BLADES, ICIO-WARDEN CARLIN, ICC-WARDEN McKAY, CONTRACTS WARDEN HIGGINS and HANSEN, Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE
DAVID
C. NYE, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Plaintiff
Michael E. Bosse, a prisoner in custody of the Idaho
Department of Correction (IDOC), filed a civil rights action
and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkts. 1, 2. The
Court is required to review prisoner and pauper complaints
seeking relief against a government entity or official to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915. The Court must dismiss a complaint 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(e)(2)(B).
After
reviewing the Complaint, the Court has determined that
Plaintiff will be required to file an amended complaint if he
desires to proceed.
REVIEW
OF COMPLAINT
1.
Standard of Law
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). 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). “Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. In other
words, Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
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).
Plaintiff
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,
332 (1986).
A
plaintiff must allege facts showing how each defendant
personally violated his constitutional rights. Vague and
conclusory allegations of official participation in civil
rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board
of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982). Rather, “[l]iability under section 1983
arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the
defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,
1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
There
is no respondeat superior liability under §1983, meaning
a supervisor cannot be sued simply because he or she is a
supervisor. Id. Rather, a plaintiff must allege
facts showing that a supervisor participated in an alleged
constitutional violation by: (1) “setting in motion a
series of acts by others”; (2) “knowingly
refus[ing] to terminate a series of acts by others, which
[the supervisor] knew or reasonably should have known would
cause others to inflict a constitutional injury”; (3)
failing to act or improperly acting in “the training,
supervision, or control of his subordinates”; (4)
“acquiesc[ing] in the constitutional
deprivation”; or (5) engaging in “conduct that
showed a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of
others.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-09
(9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and punctuation
omitted).
A
plaintiff cannot simply restate these standards of law in a
complaint; instead, a plaintiff must provide specific facts
supporting the elements of such a claim. He or she must
allege facts showing a causal link between the Defendant and
the injury or damage. Alleging “the mere possibility of
misconduct” is not enough. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679.
2.
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff
asserts that, after his assault at an Idaho state prison in
January 2017, prison officials refused to tell him the
identity of the person who assaulted him and refused to put a
flag in his file indicating that he should never be housed
with the assailant again. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered
serious injuries. He wants to ensure that he is not housed
near the assailant now or in the future.
Plaintiff
was transferred to a Texas prison facility to alleviate
crowding in the Idaho prisons. He asserts that he has a
Montana detainer lodged against him, and he asked Idaho
officials to send him to Montana to answer charges under the
detainer, rather than send him to Texas. The Idaho officials
ignored his request and sent him to Texas.
Plaintiff
alleges that, in the Texas facility, he is housed with
prisoners who should be in a maximum-security facility. He
fears that his assailant is also housed with him, but he does
not know his assailant's identity. Plaintiff contends
that, because he is a sex offender, he is at a great risk of
being assaulted again, ...