1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CODY LEE MCKIE, Case No. 25-cv-04693-WHO (PR)

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. 9 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

10 SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Cody Lee McKie alleges that prison guards were deliberately indifferent to 15 his safety when they forced him to cell with a particular prisoner, who later attacked him. 16 His

complaint containing these allegations is now before me for review 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 18 The complaint fails to state a claim for relief. McKie’s allegations do not contain 19 any specific facts showing that the prison guards not only were aware of facts from which 20 the inference could be drawn that the prisoner posed a substantial risk of serious harm to 21 him, but also that they drew that inference. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED 22 with leave to file an amended complaint on or before December 8, 2025. Failure to file a 23 proper amended complaint by December 8, 2025, may result in dismissal of this action 24 under Federal Rule of Civil 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,

(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,

(2009) 8 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(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.”

(quoting 11 Twombly,

). 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,

, 754–55 14 (9th Cir. 1994). 15 To state a claim under

, 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,

(1988). 19 B. Legal Claims 20 Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners 21 from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan,

, 833 22 (1994). However, “not . . . every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another 23 . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim’s 24 safety.”

. A prison official may be held liable for an assault suffered by one 25 inmate at the hands of another only where the assaulted inmate can show that the injury is 26 sufficiently serious,

at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter,

(1991)), and that 27 the prison official was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm, id. at 837. Thus, the 1 prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to his future health.” Id. at 834 2 (internal quotation omitted). 3 To be deliberately indifferent, the “official must both be aware of facts from which 4 the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also 5 draw the inference.” Id. “Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a 6 substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including 7 inference from circumstantial evidence . . . and a factfinder may conclude that a prison 8 official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Id. at 842. 9 The “obviousness of a risk,” however, is not conclusive, and “a prison official may 10 demonstrate that the obvious escaped him.” Id. at 843, n. 8. 11 McKie’s allegations do not show that the officers were deliberately indifferent. 12 McKie says that Salinas Valley State Prison Correctional Officers Cabillero and DeFranco 13 “threaten[e]d to write plaintiff up if plaintiff didn’t rehouse with his celly ‘Duckett.’ On 14 11.18.2024, plaintiff was brutalized by inmate Duckett.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) But 15 this does not include any specific facts that the officers were aware of facts from which the 16 inference could be drawn that Duckett posed a substantial risk of serious harm to him, and 17 also that they drew that inference. 18 Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. In his amended 19 complaint, McKie must specify the basis for his deliberate indifference claim, including 20 the facts of which the officers were aware regarding Duckett’s dangerousness and the 21 substantial risk of serious harm Duckett posed to McKie, and McKie must also describe 22 Duckett’s attack, including how, where, and when it started and what injuries he sustained. 23 CONCLUSION 24 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 25 December 8, 2025. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 26 number used in this order (25-04693 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED 27 COMPLAINT must be written on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear 1 || completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended 2 || complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. 3 || See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate 4 || material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a proper amended complaint 5 || by December 8, 2025 may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil 6 || Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. g || Dated: October 21, 2025 . \f C0 □ ? LLIAM H. ORRICK 10 United States District Judge 11 a 12

13

© 15 16

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