Brown

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 SHAWN C. BROWN, Case No. 25-cv-10502-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9 v.

10 GITIAN, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12

13 Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center (“SQRC”), has

14 filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this order, the Court screens Plaintiff’s

15 amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

16 DISCUSSION

17 A. Standard of Review

18 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims

21 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek

22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

23 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d

24 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).

25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not

27 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

1 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,

2 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).

3 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.

5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)

6 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the

7 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.

8 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

9 B. Amended Complaint

10 The amended complaint names as defendants the following SQRC officials: Sergeant

11 Gitian, Lieutenant Prada, Sergeant Sandoval, and Warden Andes.

12 The amended complaint makes the following allegations.

13 When Plaintiff arrived at SQRC in April 2022, defendant Gitian handled Plaintiff’s

14 screening and intake. Defendant Gitian informed Plaintiff that SQRC was a non-designated

15 programming facility (“NDPF”), and that there was a problem with active gang members

16 assaulting non-designated program inmates so that they could be moved to another facility.

17 Plaintiff responded that he could program at SQRC without any problems. In early 2024,

18 defendant Andes stated at a town hall meeting, “We know there has been numerous incidents

19 some time now here at the facility where active inmates are assaulting other inmates upon arrival

20 and we have been working on screening out the bad actors to try to create a safe environment for

21 those who are trying to program.”

22 In 2024, inmate Mirandapaz was housed in West Block after assaulting another inmate.

23 On July 3, 2024, as inmate Ralph Brown was walking by, inmate Mirandapaz made an obscene

24 gesture at inmate Ralph Brown and swiped at his neck with a sharp object. Inmate Ralph Brown

25 jumped away and yelled, “Man, what’s wrong with you!” Later that evening, as Plaintiff was

26 returning from evening chow and walking down the third tier, inmate Mirandapaz, without

27 provocation, attacked Plaintiff from behind. Inmate Mirandapaz struck Plaintiff on the left side of

1 himself, suffering permanent displaced fractures to the second and fifth metacarpal bone of his left

2 hand. Afterwards, Plaintiff was interviewed by defendants Prada and Sandoval regarding the

3 incident. Defendant Sandoval stated that inmate Mirandapaz “just did it because he doesn’t want

4 to be here.” Defendants Prada and Sandoval’s only concern was getting Plaintiff to sign a

5 compatibility chrono wherein Plaintiff agreed to be returned to his assigned housing unit and to

6 not retaliate against inmate Mirandapaz. Defendants Prada and Sandoval told Plaintiff that if he

7 did not sign the chrono, he would be moved to administrative segregation. Plaintiff returned to his

8 housing unit later that night, as did inmate Mirandapaz. Inmate Mirandapaz was not subject to

9 any disciplinary action.

10 The next day, July 4, 2024, inmate Mirandapaz walked up behind inmate Evans as he was

11 seated, and struck inmate Evans in the back of the head with an unknown metal object without

12 provocation. Inmate Evans stood up and defended himself. Correctional officers intervened,

13 placed inmate Mirandapaz in handcuffs, and removed him from general population.

14 On July 5, 2024, officer Hunter asked Plaintiff what happened to his hand and, before

15 Plaintiff could respond, said, “Oh yeah, you were victim number two.”

16 The amended complaint alleges that Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff from violence at

17 the hands of inmate Mirandapaz, in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and

18 unusual punishment and on deliberate indifference to inmate safety.

19 C. Dismissal with Prejudice

20 An allegation that prison officials failed to protect an inmate from violence at the hands of

21 other prisoners states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

22 833 (1994) (Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to protect

23 prisoners from violence at hands of other prisoners). The failure of prison officials to protect

24 inmates from attacks by other inmates or from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the

25 Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively,

26 sufficiently serious; and (2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to inmate

27 health or safety. Id. at 834. A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows of and

1 it. Id. at 837.

2 The Court dismissed the initial complaint for failure to state a claim for the following

3 reasons:

4 The Court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend because it cannot be

reasonably inferred from the complaint’s allegations that each individual defendant knew

5 that inmate Mirandapaz posed an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s safety and disregarded that

risk. The complaint’s general allegations that there is a culture in which Latino/Hispanic

6 inmates assault other inmates upon arriving at a NDPF and that CDCR staff are aware of

this culture is insufficient to allege that each individual defendant knew that inmate

7 Mirandapaz posed an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s safety. In addition, inmate Mirandapaz’s

assault on Plaintiff and other inmates housed in West Block does not appear to be linked to

8 the alleged culture as the assaults took place months after inmate Mirandapaz arrived at

SQRC. Also, the actions attributed to defendants Gitian and Andes do not show

9 knowledge that inmate Mirandapaz posed a danger to Plaintiff. Defendant Gitian

interacted with inmate Mirandapaz upon his arrival at SQRC in early 2024 and, at that

10 time, there was no indication that inmate Mirandapaz and Plaintiff would be housed

together, as inmate Mirandapaz was not moved to West Block until July 2024. Defendant

11 Andes’ remarks regarding inmates assaulting other inmates on arrival were made in 2025,

after the assault on Plaintiff, and do not indicate what defendant Andes knew prior to

12 inmate Mirandapaz’s assault on Plaintiff.

13 Dkt. No. 10 at 3-5.

14 The amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies in the initial complaint. The

15 allegations in the amended complaint are the same as those made in the initial complaint, with

16 three differences: (1) the initial complaint stated that defendant Andes’ remarks were made in

17 early 2025 whereas the amended complaint states that defendant Andes’ remarks were made in

18 early 2024; (2) the initial complaint alleged that there is a culture in which Latino/Hispanic

19 inmates assault other inmates upon arriving at a NDPF whereas the amended complaint alleges

20 that there is a culture in which inmates who are active gang members assault other inmates in

21 order to be moved to a different facility; and (3) the amended complaint alleges that upon learning

22 of inmate Mirandapaz’s assault on Plaintiff, defendant Sandoval said that inmate Mirandapaz

23 assaulted Plaintiff because inmate Mirandapaz “doesn’t want to be here.” These differences do

24 not cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order, which is that it cannot be reasonably

25 inferred from the factual allegations that each individual defendant knew that inmate Mirandapaz

26 specifically posed an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s safety and disregarded that risk.

27 Defendants Gitian and Andes. The amended complaint alleges that both defendants Gitian

1 facility by assaulting non-designated inmates. However, this allegation does not reasonably lead

2 to an inference that defendants Gitian and Andes were specifically aware that inmate Mirandapaz

3 would assault Plaintiff in June 2024. In addition, the amended complaint indicates that defendants

4 Gitian and Andes took steps to address the problem. Defendant Gitian asked inmates at intake if

5 they were capable of programming on a NDPF. In the town hall address, defendant Andes stated

6 that SQRC was “working on screening out the bad actors to try to create a safe environment for

7 those who are trying to program.” Dkt. No. 12 at 4.

8 Defendants Prada and Sandoval. Defendant Prada’s only involvement in the relevant

9 events was interviewing Plaintiff after he was assaulted by inmate Mirandapaz. Defendant

10 Sandoval’s only involvement in the relevant events was interviewing Plaintiff after he was

11 assaulted by inmate Mirandapaz and stating that inmate Mirandapaz assaulted Plaintiff because he

12 did not want to be “there,” presumably referring to either that particular housing unit or SQRC.

13 The interview, even if conducted in a manner that Plaintiff believes minimized his concerns about

14 his safety, and defendant Sandoval’s statement do not lead to a reasonable inference that, prior to

15 the assault, defendants Prada and Sandoval knew that inmate Mirandapaz posed a risk to

16 Plaintiff’s safety and failed to take reasonable steps to address that risk. To the extent that

17 Plaintiff is alleging that defendants Prada and Sandoval were deliberately indifferent to his safety

18 by returning him to his assigned housing after the assault, this also fails to state an Eighth

19 Amendment claim because the amended complaint indicates that defendants Prada and Sandoval

20 took steps to ensure Plaintiff’s safety, albeit not the steps that Plaintiff believed appropriate. The

21 amended complaint’s allegations do not plausibly support an inference that the only reasonable

22 step to address the risk was removing inmate Mirandapaz from Plaintiff’s housing unit.

23 The Court DISMISSES the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The dismissal

24 is with prejudice as Plaintiff has twice been granted leave to amend his complaint to cure

25 deficiencies identified by the court and has failed to cure the deficiencies. See, e.g., Zucco

26 Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court may deny

27 leave to amend where there have been repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendment).

] For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice for failure to

2 || stateaclaim. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall

3 close the case.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 || Dated: 7/31/2026

°

cavwobp S. GILLIAM, JR. /

7 United States District Judge

8

9

10

1]

a 12

13

14

15

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28