Mitchell v. Close, et al.

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION that the First Amended Complaint be Dismissed without leave to amend signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/2/2011. Objections to F&R due by 12/16/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

CHARLES A. MITCHELL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN CLOSE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00731-AWI-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 9)

16
17

Charles A. Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action against the following Physicians at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”): John Close, J.C.

19

Elliot, and Ashrof Yousef (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1 at 1-

20

3.) On July 8, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint and determined that it did not

21

state a cause of action. (Doc. 7) As a result, it dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.

22

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 9, 2011 and it is now before the Court

23

for screening. (Doc. 9) For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that the matter be

24

DISMISSED.

25 I. Screening Requirement
26

Because Plaintiff is seeking redress from governmental employees in a civil action, the Court

27

is required to screen his complaint in order to identify cognizable claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).

28

The Court shall “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is
1

1

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary

2

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. §

3

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

4 II. Pleading Standards
5

“Pro se documents are to be liberally construed” and “‘must be held to ‘less stringent

6

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)

7

(quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). “[They] can only be dismissed for failure

8

to state a claim if it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his

9

claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Id.

10

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must

11

contain: (1) a short and plaint statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . ; (2) a short

12

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for

13

the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 8(d)(1). While a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s

15

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and

16

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl.

17

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

18

In analyzing a pleading, the Court should set conclusory factual allegations aside, accept all

19

non-conclusory factual allegations as true, and determine whether those non-conclusory factual

20

allegations accepted as true state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129

21

S. Ct. 1937, 1949-52 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but

22

it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 1949 (internal

23

quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining plausibility, the Court is permitted “to draw

24

on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950.

25 III. Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations
26
27
28
2

1

Plaintiff’s factual allegations in his First Amended Complaint are sparse.1 He asserts that he

2

“became ill at Delano State Prison.” (Doc. 9 at 3.) Plaintiff seems to allege that he was returned or

3

placed at Delano State Prison after having been hospitalized for Valley Fever at two hospitals. Id.

4

He seems to claim that the defendants have some role either in his becoming ill or in his not

5

becoming well. Id.

6 IV. Discussion and Analysis
7

Once again, though Plaintiff fails to allege the deprivation of a specific constitutional right,

8

his overall Complaint seems to be based on claims of Eighth Amendment violations due to

9

inadequate medical care. (Doc. 9 at 3.)

10

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims

11

Title 42, § 1983 of the United States Code provides a cause of action against

12

[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,
of any State or Territory . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws . . .

13
14

15 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “The purpose of § 1983 is to deter state actors from using the badge of their
16

authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights and to provide relief to victims if

17

such deterrence fails.” Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992) (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S.

18

247, 254-57 (1978)). It does not provide any substantive rights, but rather “authorizes a cause of

19

action based on the deprivation of civil rights guaranteed by other Acts of Congress.” Chapman v.

20

Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979).

21

A plaintiff stating a claim under § 1983 must allege facts showing he was deprived of a

22

federal right by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);

23

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31 (1986); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178,

24

1185 (9th Cir. 2006). For a defendant to be liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove there is an

25

affirmative link between the alleged deprivation and the resulting injury. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff attaches his original complaint along with the exhibits thereto. However, the Court warned Plaintiff that
“an amended complaint must be ‘complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.’” Local Rule 220.
Moreover, given that the original complaint did not state a claim, it is of no use to Plaintiff in his current efforts.

3

1

U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). An affirmative link exists when a defendant “does an affirmative act,

2

participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to

3

do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

4

(9th Cir. 1978).

5
6

1. Failure to Link Defendants to Alleged Constitutional Violation
Title 42, § 1983 of the United States Code requires that there be an actual causal link between

7

the actions of the named defendants and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Monell v. Dep’t

8

of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978); Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 370-71; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

9

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). In order to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing each

10

named defendant either exhibited some sort of “direct personal participation in the deprivation” or

11

“set[] in motion a series of acts by others which the actor [knew] or reasonably should [have known]

12

would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.” Johnson, 588 F. 2d at 743-44. The

13

complaint must specifically allege how each named defendant is liable for the claimed deprivation.

14

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff continues to fail to describe any wrongful action

15

taken by any of the named doctors. (Doc. 9 at 3) Indeed, he seems to have a general belief that one

16

or more of the defendants did something wrong but no idea what it was or, if he does, continues to

17

fail to explain what that wrong is. Therefore, once again, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable

18

claim against any of the defendants.

19

V. Conclusion and Order

20

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has continued to fail to state a claim for

21

relief under § 1983. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to adequately link each of the named defendants to

22

a specific constitutional violation and doctors are not responsible for improper prison transfers.

23

Plaintiff will not be afforded further leave to amend. In its previous screening order, the

24

Court explained to Plaintiff the deficiencies in his pleadings. The Court explained to Plaintiff that

25

his Eighth Amendment claims failed because there were insufficient facts demonstrating that he must

26

allege facts demonstrating that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Doc 7 at 5, 6.) In

27 addition, the Court warned Plaintiff that his “amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P.
28

8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s
4

1

constitutional or other federal rights.” Id. at 6. Moreover, the Court warned, “If Plaintiff fails to

2

comply with this order, the action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.” Id. at 7.

3

Despite this, Plaintiff has failed to amend his pleading in any meaningful way and, indeed,

4

eliminated most every factual allegation.

5

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint without leave to amend

6

and will dismiss this action with prejudice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir.

7

1992) (dismissal with prejudice upheld where the court had instructed plaintiff on the deficiencies of

8

his pleadings in its prior order dismissing complaint with leave to amend).

9 IV.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

10

In accordance with the above, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

11

1.

This action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim; and

12

2.

The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case.

13 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to
14

the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of

15

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days

16

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections

17

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

18

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified

19

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

20

Cir. 1991).

21
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23 Dated: December 2, 2011
9j7khi
24

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
5