1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RYAN FRANK DENNIS ARNOLD, Case No. 24-cv-09358-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 WEST COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY MEDICAL, 11 Defendant.

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Ryan Frank Dennis Arnold alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were 15 violated when unnamed medical staff put his private address on his medications, thereby 16 allowing any inmate to know his address. His

complaint containing 17 these allegations is now before me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 18 Arnold’s allegations fail to state a plausible claim for relief. He has not alleged any 19 facts showing deliberate indifference to his safety and his allegations of possible harm to 20 him and his family are entirely speculative. Accordingly, this federal civil rights action is 21 DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief. 22 Arnold’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED because he did not 23 sign the application form. (Dkt. No. 2.) 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 4 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 5 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 7 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “A claim has facial 8 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 9 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

(quoting 10 Twombly,

). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 11 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 12 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network,

, 754–55 13 (9th Cir. 1994). 14 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 15 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 16 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 17 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 18 B. Legal Claims 19 Arnold alleges that unnamed medical staff at the West County Detention Facility 20 placed him in danger in August 2024 by including the address of his residence on his 21 medications. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3.) He believes that any inmate could have 22 searched his belongings and found his address — particularly when his personal property 23 was left behind for a time during his transfer to a mental health module — and that this 24 created the possibility that his family might be in danger. (Id.) 25 Arnold has not stated a plausible claim for relief. Medical staff printed his address 26 likely because it was the one on file. There was no intention of placing him or his family 27 in danger. At worst, such actions constitute negligence, which is not actionable under 1 || nor gross negligence is actionable under section 1983 in the prison context). Such actions 2 || certainly fall short of constituting deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, 3 || which requires a state of mind akin to criminal recklessness. /d. at 837 (a prison official is 4 || deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm 5 || and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it.) Furthermore, 6 || Arnold could have removed or scratched out the address right away to prevent exposure of 7 || the information. His allegations that someone might have seen the address and might harm 8 || his family is entirely speculative. In sum, Arnold has not alleged facts showing □□□□□ 9 || than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” [gbal,

. 10 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 11 Arnold’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED because he did 12 || not sign the IFP application. (Dkt. No. 2.) Without a signature on the form, the Court is 5 13 || not authorized to withdraw funds from his account. If Arnold wishes to proceed IFP he S 14 || must file a signed IFP form. A copy of the form will be sent to him. 3 15 CONCLUSION a 16 This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief.

17 || The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and 18 || close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 1, 2025 ( . \f (0 21 . AM H. ORRICK 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28