Bradford v. Vella-Lopez et al

Filing 81

ORDER ADDRESSING Motion for Clarification 44 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/11/14: Motion is DEEMED ADDRESSED. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Case No. 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO (PC)

11

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

12

v.
(Doc. 44)

13

I. VELLA-LOPEZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17 forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 25, 2011. This
18 action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, against
19 Defendants Peppercorn, Brooks, and Yu (“Defendants”) for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate
20 medical care under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
21

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Clarify

22 Relief.” The motion is directed at clarifying that Plaintiff is suing the defendants in their official
23 and individual capacities. However, the underlying basis for Plaintiff’s concern is unclear.
24

While Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is silent as to the capacity in which each

25 defendant is sued, Plaintiff is seeking damages based on Defendants’ alleged involvement in the
26 violation of his constitutional rights and therefore, it is presumed that they are named in their
27 individual capacities. Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999); Shoshone28 Bannock Tribes v. Fish & Game Com’n, Idaho, 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994). With respect

1 to any official capacity claims, the Court notes only that Plaintiff is also seeking prospective relief
2 in the form of a special diet, nutritional supplements, and transfer to a medical facility. Whatever
3 merit that request may or may not have in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Monsanto Co. v.
4 Geerston Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 156-57, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010), official capacity claims
5 for prospective relief are permissible in general, Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66
6 (9th Cir. 2010); Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007), but “[a]n
7 official-capacity suit ‘represent[s] only another way of pleading an action against an entity of
8 which an officer is an agent,’” Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114,
9 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099 (1985)),
10 and they are “‘treated as suits against the State,’” id. (quoting Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112
11 S.Ct. 358 (1991)).
12

Accordingly, by this order, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is DEEMED ADDRESSED.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 11, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2