# Gibson

> District Court, N.D. California · December 11, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11222091

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert D. Gibson v. T. Allen, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** December 11, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11222091

## Opinion text

1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6 ROBERT D. GIBSON, Case No. 25-cv-06834-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff,
7
ORDER DISMISSING THE
v.
8 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
9 T. ALLEN, et al.,

Defendants.
10

11
12 INTRODUCTION
13 Plaintiff Robert D. Gibson claims that state actors at Salinas Valley State Prison and
14 at the CDCR violated his federal constitutional rights by failing to prevent an attack by
15 other prisoners. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint containing these allegations is now
16 before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
17 The complaint fails to state any claim for relief. Gibson lists defendants, but he has
18 not alleged specific facts tying each of them to an alleged wrong. Supervisory defendants
19 cannot be held liable simply for being supervisors. Violations of state law do not state a
20 federal constitutional claim. And Gibson’s theories of liability are either speculative or
21 incorrect. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended
22 complaint on or before February 2, 2026. Failure to file a proper amended complaint by
23 February 2, 2026, may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil
24 Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
25 DISCUSSION
26 A. Standard of Review
27 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
1 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any
2 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
3 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
4 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.
5 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
6 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
7 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
8 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
9 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
10 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
11 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
12 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably
13 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55
14 (9th Cir. 1994).
15 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
16 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
17 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the
18 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
19 B. Legal Claims
20 In the complaint, Gibson states that on April 5 and 6, 2024 he was attacked by two
21 different groups of prisoners at Salinas Valley State Prison. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7.)
22 The April 5 attackers were, he alleges, gang members. (Id. at 6.) The April 6 attackers
23 were “3 more and completely different assailant[s].” (Id. at 7.) He lists as defendants
24 some unnamed (and some named) correctional officers and many supervisory personnel.
25 (Id. at 5.) He holds them responsible for not preventing the April 6 attack, which he
26 alleges that they could have done by viewing the recording of the April 5 attack and
27 obtaining the identities of the prior attackers. (Id. at 7-8.)
1 Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners
2 from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833
3 (1994). However, “not . . . every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another
4 . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim’s
5 safety.” Id. at 834. To be deliberately indifferent, the “official must both be aware of facts
6 from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and
7 he must also draw the inference.” Id.
8 Gibson’s allegations fail to state a claim for relief. It is not enough to list names of
9 defendants and say they are liable. Gibson must allege specific facts tying each specific
10 person to the exact wrong. “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right,’ within
11 the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
12 affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes
13 the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633
14 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry
15 into causation is individualized and focuses on the duties and responsibilities of each
16 individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional
17 deprivation. Id. Defendants cannot be held liable for a constitutional violation under 42
18 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were integral participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v.
19 Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241 (9th Cir. 2018). And unnamed defendants cannot be served
20 (here, for example, “Defendant John Doe[,] chief psychiatric officer,” Compl., Dkt. No. 1
21 at 9). Gibson must provide the names of all defendants.
22 Moreover, supervisory defendants are not responsible simply because they are
23 supervisors. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880
24 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a
25 supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor
26 “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to
27 prevent them.” Id. Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity
1 allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their
2 subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-82.
3 Gibson alleges that Kelly Santoro and Gena Jones, both CDCR Regional Directors,
4 are liable for not updating the CDCR policy on street gang members “based [on a] 40 year
5 old Los Angeles Department (hearsay) reports”; that supervisory defendants should have
6 had a more elaborate surveillance system to monitor prisoners; and that Associate Warden
7 Jonita Barchacky and Associate Warden Juan Oretga removed his single-cell status “in
8 hopes of furthering engineered violence” against him. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 8, 11 and 9.)
9 These allegations are far too speculative an allegation to show that these defendants failed
10 to protect him from the April attacks.
11 Gibson also contends that defendants violated state laws and regulations. That does
12 not state a federal claim under section 1983. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7.) Gibson must
13 allege facts that plausibly show that defendants are liable for some federal constitutional
14 wrong.
15 Finally, Gibson’s theory of liability is implausible. The April 6 perpetrators were
16 different persons from the April 5 perpetrators. There is no support for an inference that
17 viewing the recording of the April 5 events, even if defendants had an obligation to do so,
18 would have been of any help in identifying the future attackers of April 6.
19 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.
20 CONCLUSION
21 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file a first amended complaint on or
22 before February 2, 2026. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case
23 number used in this order (25-06834 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED
24 COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear
25 on this Court’s form, a copy of which will be sent to him. Because an amended complaint
26 completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended
27 complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue.
1 |} material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint
2 by February 2, 2026 may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil
3 Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
=
5 Dated: December 11, 2025 \f CE
□
6 LLIAM H. ORRICK
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
e 12

13
14

15
16

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11222091. Public record. Not legal advice.