Baker v. Mims, et al.

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint With Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/29/13. Amended Complaint due Within Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form, # 2 Complaint Filed 07/02/13)(Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VANCE LEE BAKER,

11

CASE NO.

Plaintiff,

12

1:13-cv-01020-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
(ECF No.1)

13
MARGARET MIMS, et al.,
14

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS

Defendants.

15

/

16
17

SCREENING ORDER

18
19

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20

On July 2, 2013, Plaintiff Vance Lee Baker, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in

21

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.)

22

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) His Complaint is

23

now before the Court for screening.

24
25
26

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

27
1

1

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

3

raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which

4
5

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

6

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion

7

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

8

determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

9

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

10

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges,

11
12

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States.” Wilder v.

13

Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983

14

is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating

15

federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

16

III.

17

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff names Margaret Mims, Fresno County Sheriff, and the medical staff at

18
19

Fresno County Jail as Defendants in this action and alleges the following:

20

On December 13, 2012, Plaintiff, confined in Fresno County Jail, filed an inmate

21

medical request form seeking treatment for a painful, softball-sized, growth on his stomach.

22

(Compl. at 6.) The growth was examined, Plaintiff was prescribed Ibuprofen, and a two

23

week follow-up appointment was scheduled. By April 9, 2013, five weeks had passed

24

without further medical attention; Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance and medical care

25
request. (Id. at 4, 5.) On May 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a third medical request seeking
26
27

treatment. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff has yet to receive adequate treatment.
2

1
2

IV.

ANALYSIS
A.

Section 1983

3
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
4
5

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and

6

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

7

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243,

8

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

9
10

A complaint must contain “a 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

11
12

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

13

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

14

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set

15

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its

16

face.’” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant

17

committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal

18
19

conclusions are not. Id. at 1949-50.

20

B.

21

Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally

22

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.

23

2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

24

Linkage Requirement

claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962,

25
26

969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this

27
3

1

plausibility standard. Id.

2
3

The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions
of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. See

4
5

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Government officials may

6

not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat

7

superior. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948. Since a government official cannot be held liable under

8

a theory of vicarious liability in § 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead sufficient facts showing

9

that the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at

10

1948. In other words, to state a claim for relief under § 1983, Plaintiff must link each

11
12
13

named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of
Plaintiff's federal rights.

14

The Complaint fails to link any individual with the denial of medical care to Plaintiff.

15

The mere fact that Sheriff Mims may have supervised the individuals responsible for a

16

violation is not sufficient to state a claim against her. Defendants may only be held liable

17

in a supervisory capacity if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

18
violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.
19
20

1989).

21

Plaintiff also fails to identify a specific medical staff member responsible for the

22

violations alleged. Plaintiff may not attribute liability to groups generally. Id. (requiring

23

personal participation in the alleged constitutional violations); Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d

24

292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding instruction permitting jury to find individual liable as

25
member of team, without any showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper).
26
27

Plaintiff’s allegations do not establish that a named Defendant participated in the
4

1

violation of his rights. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. To state a claim under

2

§ 1983, Plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's” deprivation

3

of protected rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Any amended

4
5

pleading must include a summary of the events underlying the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s

6

rights. Plaintiff must describe how his rights were violated and identify the individuals

7

responsible. It is not sufficient to state, as Plaintiff does in the Complaint, “lack of medical

8

attention/care” and then refer the Court to exhibits.

9
10

The following section of this order sets out the legal standards the Court believes
may be applicable to Plaintiff’s claim.

11
12

C.

Eighth Amendment

13

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects

14

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane

15

conditions of confinement.1 Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006)

16

(citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.

17

337, 347 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and

18
19

often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary

20

infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation

21

marks omitted).

22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Plaintiff com plains of inadequate m edical treatm ent while confined at Fresno County Jail. The
Com plaint does not specify whether Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner. Pretrial detainees
are protected by the Fourteenth Am endm ent's Due Process clause, which establishes that “detainees
have a right against jail conditions or restrictions that ‘am ount to punishm ent.’” Pierce v. County of
Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008). The Fourteenth Am endm ent standard is m ore protective
than the Eighth Am endm ent standard, which protects convicted prisoners against cruel and unusual
punishm ent. Id. Nonetheless, the Eighth Am endm ent deliberate-indifference standard is applied to
m edical-care claim s brought by pretrial detainees against jail officials. Sim m ons v. Navajo County, Ariz.,
609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations om itted).

5

1

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter,

2

food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d

3

726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that

4
5

a prisoner sustains while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d

6

at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, inmates must

7

show deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to their health or safety. Farmer,

8

511 U.S. at 847.

9
10

For claims arising out of medical care in prison, Plaintiff “must show [1] a serious
medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further

11
12

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the

13

defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680

14

F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

15

2006)).

16
17

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a
prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id.

18
The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than
19
20

ordinary lack of due care. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation

21

and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. Deliberate indifference may be

22

shown “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,

23

or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Wilhelm,

24

680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096) (internal quotation marks omitted).

25
V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

26
27

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim for relief under section 1983. The Court
6

1

will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d

2

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the

3

alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-

4

49. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible

5
6

on its face.’” Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also

7

demonstrate that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his

8

rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

9

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it

10

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

11

2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on curing

12
the deficiencies set forth above.
13
14

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint

15

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an

16

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55,

17

57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer

18

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

19
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
20
21

The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,”

22

refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.

23

Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although accepted as

24

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the

25
26

speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

27
7

1.

1
2

and (2) a copy of his Complaint, filed July 2, 2013;

3
4

The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form

2.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted;

5
3.

7

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

4.

6

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

8

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to comply

9

with a court order.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:

14

ci4d6

August 29, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
8