Cranford v. Medina

Filing 30

ORDER DISMISSING Fourth Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/19/2016. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00210-EPG-PC
ORDER DISMISSING FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
RENEE MEDINA, et al.,

(ECF No. 9.)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the
Complaint commencing this action on February 8, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On February 21, 2013,
Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

22

23
24
25
26
27
28

636(c) and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to
Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall
conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge
is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k).
Plaintiff amended his Complaint on March 7, 2013, but the First Amended Complaint
was stricken because Plaintiff failed to sign it. (ECF Nos. 9, 11.) On March 18, 2013, Plaintiff
1

1

filed a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) The Court1 screened Plaintiff’s Second

2

Amended Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed four separate (and

3

different) Third Amended Complaints between May 29, 2014 and June 11, 2014. (ECF Nos.

4

16, 17, 18, 22.) After the Court informed Plaintiff that he could proceed with only one of his

5
6
7

8
9

Third Amended Complaints, Plaintiff picked one and immediately filed a motion seeking
default judgment based on that Complaint. (ECF Nos. 20, 23.) The Third Amended Complaint
Plaintiff selected, however, was again not signed, and the Court instructed him to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint (the “4AC”) bearing his signature. (ECF No. 25.) The Court also denied
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed the 4AC and again

10
11

moved for default judgment shortly thereafter. (ECF Nos. 26, 28.)
Over the course of this action, the claims alleged in Plaintiff’s complaints have changed

12
13
14

significantly. The latest iteration of the complaint, in fact, alleges conduct that did not occur
until a year after the initial Complaint was filed. All the complaints appear to involve

15

Plaintiff’s interactions with various medical personnel at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”).

16

The Court previously ruled that Plaintiff failed to state a claim because he failed to describe: (1)

17

which defendants engaged in what conduct; (2) facts indicating that the defendants acted

18

contrary to professional judgment; (3) facts showing what was done to violate his rights; and

19

(4) facts demonstrating that any of the conduct described was not objectively reasonable. The

20

Court now finds that Plaintiff’s 4AC suffers from the same deficiencies and dismisses

21

Plaintiff’s case.

22

I.

23
24
25
26

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
legally Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

27
28

1

The prior screening order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gary Austin.

2

1

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

2

' 1915A(b)(1),(2). ANotwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

3

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

4

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

5
6
7

8

A complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.

9
1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955
10
11
12
13
14

(2007)). While a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to indulge
unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S.

15

at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere

16

possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 678-79; Moss

17

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

18

II.

SUMMARY OF FOURTH AMENDED COMPLANT

19

Plaintiff is a civil detainee housed at CSH. Plaintiff names the following individual

20

defendants: Renee Medina, Wafa Contreas, Senait Endale, Stefani Valley, Maira Morales,

21

Solomey Mukibi, Ama Mensab-Butts, and Rita Suzana. The Defendants appear to work at

22

CSH, although it is not clear in what capacity they do so.

23

Plaintiff sets forth vague allegations regarding his medical treatment at CSH. He

24

alleges that in 2011 he was attacked by several other patients at CSH and one of the defendants

25

“stood by and watched” the attack. It is unclear which defendant Plaintiff is referring to. In

26
27

2014, Plaintiff was seen by a doctor who confirmed that Plaintiff had suffered some kind of
head injury, but stated that the injury had “healed its self [sic]” after the passage of time.

28
3

1

Plaintiff alleges that, shortly thereafter, he required unspecified medical care and that no

2

medical care was provided. The rest of the 4AC consists of citations to various case law and a

3

recitation of the professional judgment standard enunciated in Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S.

4

307 (1982). Plaintiff concludes that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to

5
6
7

provide adequate medical care. He also makes a general allegation that defendants have
discriminated against him on the basis of race under “section 1981.”
III.

8
9

PREVIOUS SCREENING ORDER
This is Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. The Court previously screened an earlier

version of Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 13.) In

10
11
12
13
14

that order, the Court provided the standards for stating a claim for failure to provide medical
care and failure to protect and explained why Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim. The
Court also detailed what information Plaintiff should provide in his amended complaint.
Specifically, the Court explained:
Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with conduct indicating
that they acted contrary to professional judgment. Plaintiff may not hold
defendants liable simply by alleging a serious medical condition and then
charge defendants with the vague allegation that they neglected his condition.
Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each defendant acted in a way that was
in violation of professional judgment. A vague allegation of delay in getting
medication is insufficient. Plaintiff must charge each named defendant with
specific conduct that violates the above standard. Plaintiff has failed to do so
here. The first amended complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will,
however, be granted leave to file a second amended complaint.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims.
In order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the
individual defendant, describe where that defendant is employed and in what
capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff
should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff must describe
what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by
Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

21
22

23
24
25

(ECF No. 13, pg. 3-4 (emphasis in original).)

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

IV.

EVALUATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the failure of one of the Defendants

2
3

to protect him from other patients appears to be a new claim that was not alleged in his

4

previous complaints. It is also largely unconnected to the events central to the other

5
6
7

8

complaints: a failure to provide appropriate medical treatment. He also appears to have
expanded his allegations to discuss conduct that occurred in 2014, a year after he filed his
original complaint. Plaintiff was previously advised that “he may not change the nature of this
suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint.” (Order Dismissing Second

9
Amended Complaint 5:18-21, citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007), ECF
10
11
12
13
14
15

No. 13.) Plaintiff is not permitted to allege entirely new claims in the 4AC; Plaintiff was given
leave to amend the complaint explicitly and solely for the purpose of alleging the specific facts
required to state his failure to provide medical care and excessive force claims. If Plaintiff has
a claim that exists independent of this action, the proper course of action is the initiation of a
new case, not the amendment of a complaint in the current one.2

16

Section 1981

17

Section 1981 provides that:

18

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right
in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give
evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be
subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every
kind, and to no other.

19
20
21
22

42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).
Section 1981 is intended to “forbid all racial discrimination in the making of private as

23
24

well as public contracts.” Martinez v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 680 F.Supp. 1377, 1388 (N.D.

25

Cal. 1987). A claim under § 1981 thus requires a plaintiff to “show intentional discrimination

26

on account of race.” Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1989). Section 1981 can

27
28

2

The Court observes that Plaintiff has eight separate cases that were filed prior to this action and thirty seven
separate cases that were filed after this action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

5

1

only be violated by purposeful discrimination. General Bld. Contractor’s Ass’n, Inc. v.

2

Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391 (1982); Evans, 869 F.2d at 1344. “[O]vert acts coupled with

3

some direct evidence that the defendants’ conduct was motivated by racial animus” are

4

sufficient to survive dismissal at the pleading stage of litigation. Evans, 869 F.2d at 1345, citing

5
6
7

8

Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Nothing in the 4AC indicates
that any of the Defendants were motivated by racial animus. Nor does Plaintiff even identify
which Defendant was involved in the alleged conduct. Plaintiff has thus failed to state a claim
under § 1981.

9
Failure to Protect and Failure to Provide Medical Care
10
11
12
13
14

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff's right to medical care is protected by the substantive
component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Youngberg v.
Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982); Cranford v. Dirige, Case No. 1:14-cv-01101-BAM, 2014
WL 5454213, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2014). Under this provision of the Constitution, Plaintiff

15

is “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose

16

conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th

17

Cir. 2004) (quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321–22); cf. Clouthier v. County of Contra

18

Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243–44 (9th Cir. 2010) (pretrial detainees, who are confined to ensure

19

their presence at trial, are afforded only those protections provided by the Eighth Amendment).

20

Thus, to avoid liability, Defendants' decisions must be supported by “professional

21

judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323. A defendant fails to use professional judgment when

22

his or her decision is “such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment,

23

practice, or standards as to demonstrate that [he or she] did not base the decision on such a

24

judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323.

25
26
27

Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners
from violence.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994), quoting Cortes-Quinones v.
Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st Cir. 1988). To establish a violation of this duty, a

28
6

1

prisoner must demonstrate that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent to a serious threat

2

to the inmate’s safety.” Id. at 834. This requires the prisoner to satisfy both an objective and a

3

subjective component. First, the prisoner must demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was, in

4

objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Id., quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991).

5
6
7

8

Second, the prisoner must demonstrate that prison officials must have known of and
disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s safety.” Id. at 837.
As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment,
rather than the Eighth Amendment. Fisher v. Bryant, Case No. 2:10-cv-2311-KJM-DAD, 2012

9
WL 3276968 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

aforementioned Eighth Amendment rights guaranteed for prisoners “set a floor for those that
must be afforded to” civil detainees. Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2007),
vacated on other grounds by Hunter v. Hydrick, 129 S.Ct. 2431 (2009). The objectively
reasonable standard set forth by the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the “malicious and
sadistic” standard of the Eighth Amendment, applies to Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim.
To state either claim, Plaintiff must establish that each defendant had “some kind of

17

direct, personal participation” in the alleged acts. Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th

18

Cir. 2007). As with the previous iterations of his complaint, Plaintiff has failed to explain

19

specifically what conduct he alleges was wrongful or which defendants participated in that

20

conduct. Without this information, Plaintiff does not properly allege that any defendant’s

21

conduct fell outside the professional judgment standard and he thus fails to state a claim.

22

Cranford v. Dirige, Case No. 1:14-cv-01101-BAM (PC), 2014 WL 5454213, at *3 (E.D. Cal.

23

Oct. 28, 2014) (dismissing complaint because “[t]he Court cannot ascertain from Plaintiff’s

24

allegations what happened, where it happened or what defendants did or did not do that

25

violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights”); Cranford v. Manion, Case No. 1:08-cv-978-MJS

26

(PC), 2011 WL 976557, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 16, 2011) (dismissing complaint because

27
28
7

1

plaintiff “fails to provide any detail as to how he was threatened, when these threats occurred,

2

or what the other patients threatened to do”).

3
4
5
6
7

8

V.

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Fourth Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable

claims upon which relief may be granted. The Court previously granted Plaintiff leave to
amend the complaint on multiple occasions and with ample guidance by the Court. Plaintiff
has been unable to remedy the defects or state a claim even after receiving guidance from the
Court. There is thus little reason to believe that providing Plaintiff further opportunities to

9
amend his complaint would serve any useful purpose. The Court finds that the deficiencies
10
11
12
13
14

outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment and further leave to amend should
not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.
2000); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding dismissal of second
amended complaint without leave to amend after plaintiff failed to make appropriate changes to

15

amended complaints); Cranford v. Perryman, Case No. 1:13-cv-00581-MJS, 2013 WL

16

5477377, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013). Accordingly, this action shall be dismissed in its

17

entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

18

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This action is DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a

19
20

claim upon which relief may be granted; and

21

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

22

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 19, 2016

/s/

25

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
8