Coakley v. Mims et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; Amended Complaint due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/17/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

TODD LOUIS COAKLEY,

13

Plaintiff,

14

Case No. 1:13-cv-01702 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

15

MARGARET MIMS, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff Todd Louis Coakley (“Plaintiff”) is detained at the Fresno County Jail proceeding

18
19

pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this

20

action on October 23, 2013.1 He names Sheriff Margaret Mims and the Fresno County Jail Medical

21

Department as Defendants.

22

A.

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

23
24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate on October 31, 2013.

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
6
7
8
9
10
11

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 not required, but
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other
federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092
(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or
omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior
liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d
1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009);
Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim
for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
B.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
At the time the complaint was filed, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail. It is

unclear if Plaintiff is a prisoner or a pretrial detainee.
Plaintiff states he has been diagnosed by his primary care doctor with “liver disease (Hep C),
. . . MSA which is a possible leaking artery, need of l[e]ft knee surgery, [and] having extreme
abdominal pain.” Plaintiff alleges he has submitted over 50 medical request slips and a jail
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

grievance in the three months prior to his filing, but he has not received any response. Plaintiff
claims extreme lack of medical attention and negligence on the part of the medical department.
C.

DISCUSSION
1.

Plaintiff’s Status

Plaintiff is housed at the Fresno County Jail, but he does not indicate whether he is a
pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner.
In cases of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a pretrial detainee’s rights
are analyzed under the Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, while a convicted prisoner’s
rights are analyzed under the Eighth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36 (1979);
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2010); Clouthier v. County
of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1244 (9th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, the standard for claims
brought under the Eighth Amendment has long been used to analyze pretrial detainees’
conditions of confinement claims. Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1017-18; Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1242;
Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
Therefore, although the ultimate standard is the same, Plaintiff’s status dictates the
amendment under which the analysis is made. If he amends his complaint, Plaintiff should set
forth the nature of his confinement.
2.

Rule 8 and Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff is required to prove that (1) each defendant acted under color of
state law and (2) each defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.
Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff must prove that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930,
934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983, and therefore, each
defendant is only liable for his own misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1948-49 (2009).
Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires sufficient factual detail to allow the
Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2009). “Such a statement must simply give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkeiwicz v. Sorema, NA, 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). “While a
plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 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).
Here, Plaintiff does not link any named Defendant with any conduct. He names Margaret
Mims as a Defendant, but he does not state how Margaret Mims is involved in this action.
Also, Plaintiff cannot name the entire Fresno County Medical Department as Defendants.
Rather, he should only name individual defendants who were involved in his care, and against whom
he can allege facts to state a claim.
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendants.
3.

Medical Treatment

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical
care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference
to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012),
overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014);
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat
[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680
F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 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.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The
requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of
due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that any Defendant acted with the requisite state of
mind. Plaintiff contends that he received submitted medical requests, but he does not allege how any
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Ordinary lack of due care,
4

1

or even gross negligence, does not constitute deliberate indifference.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a deliberate indifference claim against any Defendant.
D.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar v.
Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what
each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may
not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101
(2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without
reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

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

under section 1983;
2.

The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3.

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

amended complaint; and
4.

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

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

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

October 17, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
5