Cranford v. Wyatt

Filing 24

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, with prejudice for failure to state a claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/14/2016. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

1:14-cv-00136-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
(ECF No. 18.)

KIM WYATT,
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

22

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint

23

commencing this action on January 31, 2014. (ECF No. 1.)

24

On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

25

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.)

26

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of

27

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as

28

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
1

1

On February 23, 2015, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim,

2

with leave to amend. (ECF No. 15.) On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended

3

Complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On January 26, 2016, the Court dismissed the First Amended

4

Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 17.) On February 22,

5

2016, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint, which is now before the Court for

6

screening. (ECF No. 18.)

7

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

8

The in forma pauperis statute provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time

9

if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief

10

may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard

11

applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983

12

actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). A

13

complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

14

entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give the

15

defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

16

Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare

17

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

18

suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell

19

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are not

20

required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681

21

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are

22

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. However, “the liberal

23

pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490

24

U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply

25

essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union

26

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

27

268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

28

///
2

1

III.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Plaintiff is civilly detained at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California, in the

3

custody of the California Department of State Hospitals, where the events at issue in the

4

Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as defendant Kim Wyatt

5

(Nurse).

6

Plaintiff’s allegations follow, in their entirety:

7

“The Defendant was given an order by the unit Doctor to acess (sic) the injured
area of my person. She refused to comply and passed the task to a nuther (sic)
Nurse hoom (sic) also refused to comply. The resalt (sic) is that Plaintiff was
left in verry (sic) serious pain for over six mounths (sic) due to the doctor
leaving the insuchion (sic).”

8
9
10

(ECF No. 18 at 5.) Plaintiff requests monetary damages.

11

IV.

DISCUSSION

12

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or

13

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d

14

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.

15

2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is

16

entitled to treatment more considerate than that afforded pretrial detainees or convicted

17

criminals.

18

constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the substantive component

19

of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (1982).

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004).

Plaintiff’s right to

20

A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing of his

21

liberty interests against the relevant state interests.” Id. at 321. Plaintiff is “entitled to more

22

considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of

23

confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires only that courts ensure that

24

professional judgment was exercised. Id. at 321-22. A “decision, if made by a professional, is

25

presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision by the professional is

26

such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to

27

demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.”

28

Id. at 322-23; compare Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243-44 (9th Cir.
3

1

2010) (rejecting the Youngberg standard and applying the deliberate indifference standard to a

2

pretrial detainee’s right to medical care, and noting that pretrial detainees, who are confined to

3

ensure presence at trial, are not similarly situated to those civilly committed). The professional

4

judgment standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that required in ordinary tort cases

5

for a finding of conscious indifference amounting to gross negligence.” Ammons v.

6

Washington Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied,

7

132 S.Ct. 2379 (2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
In the Court’s prior order dismissing the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a

8
9

claim, the Court held that:
“Plaintiff’s vague allegations fall short of supporting a claim that his federal
rights were violated. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 322-23. In addition, the mere fact
that Defendant passed her job to another does not suffice to support a claim
under section 1983. Id.”

10
11
12
13

(ECF No. 17 at 3:20-23.)

14

Plaintiff alleges essentially the same facts in the Second Amended Complaint that he

15

alleged in the First Amended Complaint. There are no facts in the Second Amended Complaint

16

to support an allegation that Defendant Wyatt was consciously indifferent to Plaintiff’s needs.

17

V.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state any

18
19

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983.

20

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “leave to amend shall be

21

freely given when justice so requires.” However, for the reasons discussed above, it does not

22

appear that additional facts would cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims.

23

provided Plaintiff with ample guidance for curing the deficiencies in the First Amended

24

Complaint, and Plaintiff has now filed three complaints without stating any claims upon which

25

relief may be granted. Therefore, this case shall be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to

26

state a claim.

27

///

28

///
4

The Court

1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3
4

This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under § 1983; and

2.

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 14, 2016

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5