Rodriguez v. Aguirre et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT and GRANTING Plaintiff LEAVE TO File AMENDED COMPLAINT, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/11/2014. Amended Complaint Due Within Thirty Days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form) (Marrujo, C)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

BENANCIO RODRIGUEZ,

Case No. 1:13 cv 01457 GSA PC

Plaintiff,
11
12
13

vs.

E. AGUIRRE, et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants

14

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
IN THIRTY DAYS

15

16
17

I.

Screening Requirement

18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction

20
21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

22

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

23

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

24

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

25

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

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on October 17, 2013 (ECF No. 5).
1

1
2
3
4

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been
paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or
appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

5

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

6

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

7

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a

8

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.

9

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s

10

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the

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

II.

17

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

18

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran

19

(SATF), brings this lawsuit against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at

20

SATF. Plaintiff names as Defendants E. Aguirre and R. Bralford. Plaintiff claims that he was

21

injured in an accident and subjected to inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth

22

Amendment.

23

Rather than set forth his allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff makes a vague complaint

24

that he is being denied adequate medical care, and refers the Court to documents attached to the

25

complaint. Plaintiff also refers to an incident on E-Facility on February 28, 2012. Plaintiff may

26

not hold defendants liable by claiming deliberate indifference and attaching documents to his

27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5
6

complaint. Plaintiff must set forth, in his complaint, a statement of claim alleging facts that
indicate that each defendant was deliberately indifferent to his safety or his medical care.
A.

Medical Care

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
inmate must show „deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.‟” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)).

7

The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “„a serious medical

8

need‟ by demonstrating that „failure to treat a prisoner‟s condition could result in further

9

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

10
11

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v.
Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v.

12

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate

13

indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible

14

medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060).

15

Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to

16

further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious

17

medical needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm‟rs, 766

18

F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)).

19

B.

20

The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to

Safety

21

guarantee the safety of inmates, which has been interpreted to include a duty to protect prisoners.

22

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th

23

Cir. 2005). A prisoner seeking relief for an Eighth Amendment violation must show that the

24

officials acted with deliberate indifference to the threat of serious harm or injury to an inmate.

25

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). “Deliberate indifference” has

26

both subjective and objective components. A prison official must “be aware of facts from which

27

the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and . . . must also draw

28

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Liability may follow only if a prison official “knows
that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847.
Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth a generalized
allegation regarding his health care, and names 2 individual defendants. To state a claim under
section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2)
the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County

8

of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person deprives another of a

9

constitutional right, where that person „does an affirmative act, participates in another‟s

10

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that

11

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th

12

Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite

13

causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in

14

the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or

15

reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting

16

Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with conduct

17

indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s health, resulting in injury

18

to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply by alleging a serious medical

19

condition and then charge defendants with the vague allegation that they neglected his condition.

20

Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each defendant was aware of a specific harm to Plaintiff,

21

and acted with deliberate indifference to that harm. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The

22

complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an

23

amended complaint.

24

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to

25

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where

26

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under

27

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff

28

4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by
Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.
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
order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he
may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended
complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).
Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what

11

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal

12

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must

13

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

14

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted).

15

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

16

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

17

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

18

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an

19

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d

20

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

21

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

22

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1.

24

Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a
claim;

25

2.

The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

26

3.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

27
28

an amended complaint;
5

1

4.

2

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

3
4
5

Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

complaint; and
5.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action,
with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

11

/s/ Gary S. Austin

12

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

December 11, 2014