Grant v. Haro
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-06562
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Grant v. Haro, Judge Alsup granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that gang affiliation alone did not support an Eighth Amendment safety claim.
Patrick Grant and the defendants addressed in the order—Officers Haro and Mendez, Sergeant P. Garcia, and E.J. Borla.
What happened
In Grant v. Haro, Patrick Grant, a California prisoner representing himself, claimed that prison officials violated his constitutional right to safety by trying to assign him a gang-affiliated cellmate and denying his grievance. He never shared a cell with the inmate, and the inmate never harmed him.
The court held that Grant did not allege facts showing the inmate posed a particular danger or that officials knew of and ignored a serious risk. Grant’s general belief that gang-affiliated inmates are inherently dangerous was not enough. Because the officers’ conduct was not unconstitutional, the court also rejected the claims based on approving or denying that conduct.
Judge Alsup granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Haro · No. 3:20-cv-06562
- William Alsup
- July 21, 2021
Background
Patrick Grant, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The claims addressed in this order were against Correctional Officers Haro and Mendez, Sergeant P. Garcia, and E.J. Borla. Grant alleged that these defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by endangering him when they attempted to assign a prospective cellmate who said he was affiliated with a gang, and by denying his administrative grievance about that attempt.
Grant met the prospective cellmate at his cell door in August 2019 and refused to let the inmate enter because Grant believed gang affiliation brought an inherent risk of violence. Haro and Mendez told Grant that the two inmates were compatible and tried to persuade him to accept the assignment. Garcia and Borla investigated and denied Grant’s grievance. Grant never shared a cell with the prospective cellmate, and the inmate never harmed him.
Motion and legal standard
The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the complaint did not state a claim for relief. The court explained that this motion is generally evaluated under the same standard as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court had to accept properly pleaded factual allegations as true and interpret them favorably to Grant, while not accepting conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences. Because Grant was representing himself, the court also applied a more forgiving reading to his pleading.
Analysis
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners. To state a failure-to-protect claim, a prisoner must allege both an objectively serious deprivation and that the official deliberately ignored an excessive known risk to the prisoner’s health or safety.
The court ruled that Grant’s allegations did not show that Haro and Mendez knowingly placed him in danger. Grant did not allege that the prospective cellmate had threatened him, had previously committed violence, had a history of hostility toward him, or that Grant was affiliated with a rival gang or otherwise particularly likely to be targeted. Grant’s assertion that all gang-affiliated inmates are inherently dangerous did not establish that this inmate posed a threat to him or that the defendants knew the inmate would endanger him. The court noted that prisoners need not wait until an assault occurs before seeking relief, but found no allegation here showing a sufficient likelihood of harm.
The court also ruled that Garcia and Borla could not be liable merely for approving or denying the other defendants’ actions because the underlying actions by Haro and Mendez did not violate the Constitution.
Disposition
Judge William Alsup granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.