Cranford v. Brain et al

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice for failure to state a claim signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/29/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

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

vs.
KATHLEEN O’BRIAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:14-cv-00221-GSA-PC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE, WITH
PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
(Doc. 20.)
ORDER FOR CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

16
17
18

I.

BACKGROUND

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Plaintiff to either file a Second Amended Complaint or notify the court that he is willing to
1

1

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

2

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

3

17.) The court screened the Second Amended Complaint and issued an order on April 16,

4

2015, dismissing the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to

5

amend. (Doc. 19.) On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint, which is

6

now before the court for screening. (Doc. 20.)

7

II.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

8

The in forma pauperis statute provides that Athe 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 Aa 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 A[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 Atlantic

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

///

28

///
2

1

III.

SUMMARY OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLANT

2

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

3

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

4

Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names sole defendant Kathleen O’Brian

5

(“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s factual allegations follow, in their entirety (sic).
“Now comes plaintiffs secound ameanded complaint on or about november
20014 durring a forced court yard brake plaintiff and several outher patients was
forced into one of the small court yards while our houseing unit was being
searched while on the yard the defeendant started to call plaintiff a bastard
knoweing full well that the defendant was degradeing plaintiffs deceased
mouther the defenndant knew as well that he posesses a sevear mental dissorder
regarding his mouther therefore she delibeartly used that percisse title regarding
plaintiffs moutherwhat the defendant did was use verbal force to invoke hostial
form of excessive force which is punishable in montiary and injunctiuve relif as
stated in the originail complaint now plaintiff is fully awaire that he is not too
use or copy parts of amended complaints and to the best of his knalage he has
not.”

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

(Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 20 at 1.)
IV.

PLAINTIFF’S VERBAL HARASSMENT CLAIM
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
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

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id.

25

Plaintiff claims that the Defendant called him names, insulting Plaintiff’s mother, which

26

caused Plaintiff mental distress. Mere verbal harassment or abuse alone is not sufficient to

27

state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d

28

136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987); accord Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996).
3

1

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for verbal harassment. Plaintiff also fails to state any

2

other cognizable claims against the Defendant in the Third Amended Complaint.

3

V.

CONCLUSION

4

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Third Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable

5

claims upon which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court previously granted Plaintiff

6

leave to amend the complaint, with ample guidance by the Court. The Court finds that the

7

deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment, and therefore further

8

leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

9

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this action shall be dismissed in its entirety, with

10

prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

11

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

13
14

This action is DISMISSED in its entirety, 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.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 29, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
4