Cranford v. Price et al
Filing
18
ORDER DISMISSING Action with Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim; Clerk to Terminate Motions and Close Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/22/14. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARCHIE CRANFORD,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIANDON PRICE, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01093-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM
(ECF No. 17)
CLERK TO TERMINATE MOTIONS AND
CLOSE CASE
17
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate
19
Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9.) No other parties have appeared in the action.
20
21
The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1), dismissed it for failure to
state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
22
(ECF No. 13) also was dismissed with leave to amend (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff sought,
23
and on October 14, 2014 received, a ninety day extension of time to file his second
24
amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document
25
26
entitled “Motion First Ameanded Complaint.” (ECF No. 17.)
Although styled as a motion, Plaintiff’s October 29, 2014 filing appears to be his
27
second amended complaint, and the Court will construe it as such.
28
1
I.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
2
The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any
3
portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if
4
the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which
5
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
6
II.
PLEADING STANDARD
7
Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights,
8
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
9
Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
10
Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for
11
vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94
12
(1989).
13
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
14
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and
15
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state
16
law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d
17
1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
18
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
19
the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
20
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
21
supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
22
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
23
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
24
that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere
25
possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are
26
accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.
27
28
2
1
III.
Plaintiff is detained at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”), where the acts giving rise
2
3
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
to his complaint occurred. Plaintiff names Briandon Price as Defendant.
Plaintiff’s factual allegations, in their entirety, are as follows:
4
5
Plaintiff was assalted by several fellow patients and the
plaintiff filed several patients complaints in hopes of
receveing some sort of relief plaintiff also wrote to the
attorney general also seeking relief in bouuth matters nothing
was done plaintiff also requested to be seen by the housing
unit doctor of which was granted the doctor acessed plaintiff
and discovered a small mouse under plaintiffs right eye
6
7
8
9
wh
10
where plaintiff had been struck the doctor ordered painr
medichion for the mouse and outher boady parts that had
been effected but the doctor was the onley staff member to
respond in an proper manner
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IV.
ANALYSIS
The
Fourteenth
Amendment
provides
the
standard
for
evaluating
the
constitutionally protected interests of individuals who have been involuntarily committed
to a state facility. Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed. Appx. 148, 150–51 (3d Cir. 2007); see
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 312 (1982). In determining whether the
constitutional rights of an involuntarily committed individual have been violated, the court
must balance the individual’s liberty interests against the relevant state interests, with
deference shown to the judgment exercised by qualified professionals. Youngberg, 457
U.S. at 320-22.
Plaintiff’s right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected
by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Id. at 315. He is “entitled to
more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose
conditions of confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires only that
courts ensure that professional judgment was exercised. Id. at 321–22.
27
28
3
1
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint suffers from several deficiencies. First,
2
Plaintiff does not link the only named Defendant, Mr. Price, to his claims. Under § 1983,
3
Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the
4
deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo Cnty.,
5
Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218,
6
1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
7
Second, Plaintiff does not allege facts to indicate whether Defendant was aware
8
of his complaints regarding the prior assault or his alleged inadequate medical care. He
9
also does not allege whether or how his medical care may have been deficient. A
10
“decision, if made by a professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only
11
when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted
12
professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person
13
responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Id. at 322–23. The
14
professional judgment standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that required
15
in ordinary tort cases for a finding of conscious indifference amounting to gross
16
negligence.” Ammons v. Wash. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th
17
Cir. 2011) (citations and emphasis omitted).
18
Finally, it is unclear whether Plaintiff suffered further assaults after his complaints,
19
and thus whether Defendant may be said to have failed to protect Plaintiff from such
20
further assaults. Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that Defendant was aware Plaintiff
21
was assaulted or at risk for further assaults.
22
Based on the foregoing, the Complaint does not indicate that Defendant exhibited
23
a conscious indifference amounting to gross negligence. See Ammons, 648 F.3d at
24
1029. While Plaintiff has a liberty interest in safe conditions of confinement, Youngberg,
25
457 U.S. at 315, and care that is professionally acceptable, id. at 321, his allegations are
26
not sufficient to state a claim under applicable standards.
27
28
4
1
Plaintiff previously was advised of these deficiencies. His failure to cure them
2
reasonably is construed as reflecting his inability to do so. Further leave to amend would
3
be futile and will be denied.
4
IV.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
5
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 17) does not state a claim upon
6
which relief may be granted. Plaintiff was advised in the prior screening orders of
7
deficiencies in his claims and was given the opportunity to correct them. Plaintiff has
8
failed to do so, and no useful purpose would be served in allowing yet another
9
opportunity to amend.
10
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim,
12
and
13
2. Any and all pending motions shall be terminated and the Clerk of the Court
14
shall CLOSE this case.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 22, 2014
/s/
18
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
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?