Jonathan Christopher Coffer v. Singh, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screens a state prisoner’s second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concludes that the plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim because he identifies no injury caused by remaining on the floor and does not allege deliberate indifference by the defendant nurses. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without leave to amend and closure of the case, while denying the motion for service of process.

Holdings

1. The second amended complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim because plaintiff did not identify an injury caused by remaining on the floor and did not allege facts showing that any defendant knew or should have known he would fall and remain on the floor.
2. The motion requesting an order directing service of process on defendants was denied because the complaint did not survive screening.
3. The court declined to grant leave to file a third amended complaint because plaintiff had already been given two opportunities to state a claim and further amendment appeared futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the second amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim based on defendants' alleged failure to ensure that a bed alarm was audible.
2. Whether plaintiff's motion for an order directing service of process should be granted before the complaint survived screening.
3. Whether plaintiff should receive leave to file a third amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed