Cranford v. Brain et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING 17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/16/2015. Third Amended Complaint due within thirty (30) days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form). (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.
KATHLEEN O‟BRIAN, et al.,

13

Defendants.

1:14-cv-00221-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(Doc. 17.)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE THIRD
AMENDED COMPLAINT

14
15

I.

BACKGROUND

16

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

17

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

18

20, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On February 27, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction

19

in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance.

20

(Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of

21

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

22

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

23

On February 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7.) The

24

court screened the First Amended Complaint and issued an order on June 25, 2014, requiring

25

Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the court that he is willing to

26

proceed on the excessive force claim found cognizable by the court in the First Amended

27

Complaint. (Doc. 16.) On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint, which

28

is now before the court for screening. (Doc. 17.)
1

1

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

2

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

3

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

4

may be granted.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts Aare not required to

14

indulge unwarranted inferences,@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir.

15

2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as

16

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

17

. . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9

18

(1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

19

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,

20

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

21

III.

SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

Plaintiff is presently housed at Coalinga State Hospital in Coalinga, California, in the

23

custody of the California Department of Mental Health, where the events at issue in the Second

24

Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants Kathleen O‟Brian and

25

Earek James (“Defendants”).

26

Plaintiff‟s allegations are largely vague, rambling, and conclusory. Plaintiff alleges that

27

defendant O‟Brian insulted him and gave his meal to another patient, and that defendant James

28

subjected him to excessive force. Although the allegations are not clearly set forth, Plaintiff
2

1

appears to allege that defendant O‟Brian‟s conduct caused Plaintiff to fear a possible altercation

2

with another inmate in which Plaintiff would be injured. Plaintiff also appears to allege that

3

defendant James used force against him when placing him in isolation, causing harm to his

4

upper body. Plaintiff alleges, in part (sic):
“[P]laintiff claims that Defendant kathleen o, brin insulted
plaintiff and gave his meal too an nuther patient and patient
claims that Defendant Mr. james Erick subjected him
[PLAINTIFF] to exessive force. The court claim that the above
stated actions none of which applies to section 1983 action[note]
with limited exceptions such as this exception if a defeandeant
uses multible insults to invoke feer [Teareast Freer] of which can
amount to words that can and did lead to exstreem feer and the
same meathead was applied in the giving plaintiffs food away to
mr. good a black patient this was done in hopes of getting an
physical alltercashion of which plaintiff would have no chance
what so ever of perviailing in a long with outher members of his
race the reasion of bouth atempts was to see plaintiff as well
outhers searousley injuried or worse the risk to a particular
patient officials or employees will obviously be held liable for an
assalt if they actively permit or encourage it as the defeandeant
attempted she will also be found deliberateely indifferent if she
stand by and do nothing about an assalt that they witness or have
been notified of to take action in eather stoping or perventing that
she worked through getting started is not very feassable why give
plaintiffs food away or insault plaintiff . . .”

5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

(Second Amended Complaint (2ACP), Doc. 17 at 1:15-25.)

17

IV.

18

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

19

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress.

20
21
22

23

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal

24

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)

25

(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the

26

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal

27

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.

28

///
3

1

Rule 8(a)

2

The court finds the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint to be vague and conclusory.

3

Swierkeiwicz, 534 U.S. at 512. Under federal notice pleading, a complaint is required to

4

contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .

5

. .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Such a statement must simply give defendant fair notice of what

6

the plaintiff‟s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.

7

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice

8

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly.

9

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of

10

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. As

11

stated above, AWhile a plaintiff=s allegations are taken as true, courts Aare not required to

12

indulge unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I, 572 F.3d at 681. Under section 1983, Plaintiff must

13

demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones

14

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

15

presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

16

at 678; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of

17

misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

Jones v. Community Redev.

This requires the

18

Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

19

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that any of the

20

Defendants personally acted to violate Plaintiff‟s Constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff has

21

failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the Second Amended

22

Complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to amend.

23

In the following paragraphs, the court sets forth legal standards that appear to apply to

24

Plaintiff‟s claims. Plaintiff should review the standards before preparing the Third Amended

25

Complaint, and only allege claims upon which it appears he can succeed.

26

Excessive Force – Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

27

It is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that protects civil detainees

28

from the use of excessive force which amounts to punishment, Gibson v. County of Washoe,
4

1

Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1197 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10

2

(1989)), and the Fourth Amendment sets the applicable constitutional limitations for

3

considering such claims, Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing

4

Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1198) (quotation marks omitted).

5

In resolving claims of excessive force brought by civil detainees, the Fourth

6

Amendment=s objective reasonableness standard applies. Lolli, 351 F.3d at 415. The inquiry is

7

whether Defendants= actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances

8

confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Id. (citing Graham,

9

490 U.S. at 397) (quotation marks omitted). The nature and quality of the intrusion on

10

Plaintiff=s Fourth Amendment interests must be balanced against the countervailing

11

governmental interests at stake.

12

omitted). Factors may include the severity of the incident giving rise to the use of force,

13

whether Plaintiff posed an immediate threat to the safety of Defendants or others, and whether

14

Plaintiff was actively attempting to avoid being subdued or brought under control. See Gibson,

15

290 F.3d at 1198 (citation omitted).

16

Verbal Harassment

17

Mere verbal harassment or abuse alone is not sufficient to state a constitutional

18

deprivation under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.

19

1987); accord Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996).

Id. (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at 397) (quotation marks

20

Conditions Of Confinement – Civil Detainee

21

A civil detainee retains greater liberty protections than individuals detained under

22

criminal process and is “„entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement

23

than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.‟” Jones v. Blanas, 393

24

F.3d 918, 931–32 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322, 102 S.Ct.

25

2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982)). Treatment is presumptively punitive when a civil “detainee is

26

confined in conditions identical to, similar to, or more restrictive” than his criminal

27

counterparts. Id. at 933.

28

///
5

1

Plaintiff's right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by

2

the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315. A

3

determination whether Plaintiff's rights were violated requires “balancing his liberty interests

4

against the relevant state interests”; the Constitution, however, is not concerned with de

5

minimis restrictions on a patient's liberties. Id. at 320–21. Additionally, there must be a

6

reasonable relationship between “the conditions and duration of confinement” and the purpose

7

for which the civilly confined person is committed. Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 265, 121

8

S.Ct. 727, 148 L.Ed.2d 734 (2001).

9

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

10

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff=s Second Amended Complaint

11

fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983 against any of the

12

Defendants. Plaintiff has now filed three complaints, with ample guidance by the court, and the

13

operative complaint on file fails to state any claims. At this juncture, the court usually moves

14

to dismiss the case in its entirety for failure to state a claim. However, in light of the fact that

15

Plaintiff was able to state a cognizable claim for excessive force in the First Amended

16

Complaint, the court shall allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend.

17

The Third Amended Complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state

18

what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff=s constitutional or other

19

federal rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

20

Asufficient factual matter . . . to >state a claim that is plausible on its face.=@ Id. at 678 (quoting

21

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is

22

only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must demonstrate

23

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at

24

934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened and how

25

each defendant‟s actions violated the particular right described by Plaintiff.

678; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must set forth

26

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not

27

for the purposes of adding allegations of events occurring or claims arising after February 20,

28

2014. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his
6

1

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot”

2

complaints).

3

Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

4

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012) (en banc), and it

5

must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule

6

220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function

7

in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and

8

the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint

9

should be clearly and boldly titled AThird Amended Complaint,@ refer to the appropriate case

10

number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.

11

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

13

Plaintiff‟s Second Amended Complaint, filed on July 3, 2014, is DISMISSED
for failure to state a claim under § 1983, with leave to amend;

14

2.

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

15

3.

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

16
17

a Third Amended Complaint, curing the deficiencies identified in this order;
4.

18
19

Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint AThird Amended Complaint@ and
refer to the case number 1:14-cv-00221-GSA-PC; and

5.

20

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

21
22

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 16, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
7