Esparza v. Mims
Filing
6
ORDER Dismissing Complaint and Granting Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/15/13. Amended Complaint Due in Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Gonzalez, R)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
4
5
6
7
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
Case No. 1:13 cv 00593 GSA PC
RUBEN ESPARZA,
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
vs.
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,
Defendants
11
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
IN THIRTY DAYS
12
13
14
15
16
I.
Screening Requirement
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
17
18
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
20
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
21
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
22
legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
23
24
that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
25
§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
26
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
27
28
1
1
appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
2
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3
“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
4
5
exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
6
U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a
7
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.
8
Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s
9
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the
10
11
liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams,
12
490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not
13
supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union
14
Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
15
(9th Cir. 1982)).
16
17
II.
Plaintiff’s Claims
18
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Fresno County Jail, brings this civil rights action against
19
Defendants Sheriff Margaret Mims and “Medical Staff and Doctor.” Plaintiff filed his complaint
20
21
on a form for a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, in his statement of
claim, Plaintiff indicates that “attached are grievances for medical attention as well as
22
23
24
treatment.”
To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted
25
under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution
26
or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person
27
28
deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person ‘does an affirmative act, participates
2
1
in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to
2
do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978,
3
988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he
4
5
‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal
6
participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the
7
actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’”
8
Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44).
9
Plaintiff may not simply file a complaint and refer the Court to his exhibits. Plaintiff
10
11
must name individual defendants, and allege facts indicating how each individual defendant
12
violated a constitutional right of Plaintiff’s. Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal
13
arguments in support of his claims. In order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must
14
name the individual defendant, describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity,
15
and explain how that defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in
16
17
18
his or her 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.
19
A.
20
Plaintiff is advised that “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison
21
Medical Care
medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett
22
23
v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97
24
S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1)
25
“‘a serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could
26
result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the
27
28
defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting
3
1
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX
2
Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations
3
omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a
4
5
prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing
6
McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical
7
treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of
8
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada
9
Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)).
10
B.
11
Plaintiff names Sheriff Mims as a Defendant. Government officials may not be held
12
13
14
Supervisory Liability
liable for the actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a government official cannot be held liable under a
15
theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead that the official has
16
17
violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at 673. In other words, to state
18
a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named defendant with some
19
affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights. Plaintiff
20
21
has not alleged any facts indicating that Sheriff Mims was personally involved in the deprivation
of any constitutional right of Plaintiff’s. She should therefore be dismissed.
22
23
24
25
26
III.
Conclusion and Order
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims
Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the
opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this
27
order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he
28
4
1
may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended
2
complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).
3
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what
4
5
each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal
6
rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must
7
be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
8
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted).
9
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,
10
11
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,
12
567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded
13
pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an
14
original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d
15
at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord
16
17
Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.
18
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
19
1.
20
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a
claim;
21
2.
The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;
3.
Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file
22
23
an amended complaint;
24
25
26
4.
Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended
complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended
27
complaint; and
28
5
1
5.
2
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss action, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
3
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
10
11
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
12
6i0kij8d
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
September 15, 2013
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?