(PC) Goff v. Lackner, 1:15-cv-01073

Goff, a former state prisoner, is proceeding in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 2, 2015, naming Heidi Lackner (Warden at Sierra Conservation Center) and Does 1–30 as defendants.
Plaintiff alleges a May 19, 2015 riot at the A-yard facility caused physical and emotional injury due to staff's alleged lack of training, protection, and proper response.
Plaintiff contends that SCC staff allowed inmate-on-inmate assault and that reporting officers falsified evidence to cover up failures to protect non-participating inmates.
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found it deficient for lack of personal participation by Lackner and for failure to identify unnamed defendants.
The court also concluded that Plaintiff had not exhausted available administrative remedies prior to filing suit and granted leave to amend to cure these deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lackner personally participated in a constitutional violation	Goff asserts Lackner’s personal duty caused the deprivation.	Lackner, as Warden, cannot be liable under respondeat superior; must show personal involvement.	No cognizable claim against Lackner; no showing of personal participation.
Whether unidentified Does 1–30 can be served or are properly named	Goff alleges misconduct by multiple staff; does not know all names.	Court cannot order service on unnamed defendants without identification.	Doe defendants must be identified by name or sufficiently identified; service not authorized on unknown individuals.
Whether the complaint was properly exhausted under the Prison Litigation Reform Act	Goff indicates there is a grievance process, but he did not appeal because the riot had occurred.	PLRA exhaustion required; complaint premature as to exhaustion.	Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; action subject to dismissal unless amended to show exhaustion.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires more than mere conclusory statements)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local government liability requires policy or custom; link to deprivation)
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (individual liability requires personal participation)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (exhaustion doctrine and screening context; failure to exhaust can lead to dismissal)
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure to exhaust as a basis for dismissal)
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (12(b)(6)-style dismissal for failure to state a claim incorporating exhaustion analysis)