Jackson v. Stiles

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING 12 Action (Strike) with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim; DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE Pursuant to 28 USC 1915(g); Clerk to TERMINATE all Pending Motions and CLOSE CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 8/27/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No. 1:14-cv-00752-MJS (PC) CURTIS RENEE JACKSON, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 12) Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 STILES, 15 DISMISSAL COUNTS AS STRIKE PURSUANT TO 28 USC § 1915(g) Defendant. CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed 18 19 on May 19, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint was dismissed for failure 20 to state a claim. 21 The First Amended Complaint is before the Court for screening. 22 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 23 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 25 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 27 raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon 28 1 1 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, 3 or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any 4 time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon 5 6 which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 7 II. PLEADING STANDARD 8 Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 9 privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 10 Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990), quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 11 Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method 12 for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 13 14 15 393-94 (1989). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 16 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 17 that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 18 19 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987). 20 21 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 22 the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations 23 are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 24 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 25 662, 678 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 26 27 Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that 28 2 1 a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, 2 legal conclusions are not. Id. at 667-68. 3 III. 4 SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff claims that he was exiting the Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) 5 6 medical clinic in his wheelchair at the same time that Defendant Stiles, a Licensed 7 Vocational Nurse at PVSP, was exiting the nurse’s station. Stiles flung open the nurse’s 8 station door deliberately causing it to collide with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s left hand was 9 injured. He received treatment for his injury. 10 11 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. IV. DISCUSSION 12 A. Deliberate Indifference 13 The standard for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment involves 14 15 an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged rights violation must be, in 16 objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 17 (1994), citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991). Second, the prison official 18 19 must “know [ ] of and disregard [ ] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837. 20 21 To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, the plaintiff must show either that 22 prison officials acted with deliberate indifference or that their conduct was so reckless 23 as to be tantamount to a desire to inflict harm. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th 24 Cir. 2011). 25 26 Here, the First Amended Complaint does not allege facts suggesting Defendant Stiles was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. 27 Nothing before the Court directly or circumstantially reflects that Stiles opened the door 28 3 1 with any knowledge Plaintiff might be struck by it, much less that Defendant did so 2 intentionally to harm Plaintiff or in knowing disregard of a serious risk to Plaintiff. See 3 4 Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90, 92 (7th Cir. 1996) (the inmate must show subjective culpability “establishing that the prison official acted either deliberately or with deliberate 5 6 indifference to inmate's health or safety”, which requires that official “must both be 7 aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 8 harm exists, and he must also draw that inference.”). 9 It appears that at most, Stiles was careless in his/her actions. Negligence alone 10 is not sufficient to support an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. 11 Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle v. Gamble, 12 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). 13 B. State Law Negligence 14 15 A public employee is liable for injury to a prisoner “proximately caused by his 16 negligent or wrongful act or omission.” Cal. Gov't Code § 844.6(d). “In order to establish 17 negligence under California law, a plaintiff must establish four required elements: (1) 18 19 duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1203 (9th Cir. 2003). The allegation Defendant negligently opened the door Plaintiff 20 21 22 collided with, causing Plaintiff harm, is sufficient on screening to show these elements. However, under the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”), a plaintiff may not 23 maintain an action for damages against a public employee unless he alleges facts 24 demonstrating presentation of a written claim to the state Victim Compensation and 25 Government Claims Board within six months of accrual of the action. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 26 905, 911.2(a), 945.4 & 950.2; Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (Cal. 27 2007); Mangold v. California Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). A 28 4 1 plaintiff may file a written application for leave to file a late claim up to one year after the 2 cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.4. Plaintiff does not allege compliance 3 with CTCA claim filing requirements. 4 V. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 5 6 The First Amended Complaint does not state a claim. Plaintiff was previously 7 advised of the deficiencies in his claims. His failure to successfully correct the noted 8 deficiencies reasonably suggests the futility of further amendment. 9 10 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 11 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim, further amendment would be futile and is denied, 12 2. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, 13 dismissal shall count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Silva v. 14 Di Vittoria, 658 F.3d at 1009, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011), and 15 16 3. 17 Any and all pending motions shall be terminated and the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: August 27, 2014 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?