Gaona v. State of California, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER Dismissing Complaint, with Leave to Amend, for Failure to State a Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/10/14. 30-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint Form)(Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JESUS J. GAONA,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

Case No. 1:14-cv-01677-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH
LEAVE AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM

13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

(Doc. 6)

14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO AMEND

15
16 I.

Procedural Background

17

Plaintiff Jesus J. Gaona, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 27, 2014. On October 29, 2014, the
19 Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of signature and requiring Plaintiff to
20 file a signed complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff filed a signed complaint on November 12,
21 2014, but the complaint is devoid of a single fact describing Plaintiff’s legal claim against Warden
22 James Yates or the Chief Medical Officer, who is not identified by name. For the reasons set forth
23 below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
24 II.

Screening Requirement and Standard

25

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

26 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
27 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are
28 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that

1 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
2 (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court
3 shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to
4 state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
5

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

6 pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
7 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
8 conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937
9 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and
10 courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572
11 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual
12 allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
13

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated

14 in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This
15 requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal,
16 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners
17 proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and
18 to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010)
19 (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the
20 plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
21 III.

Discussion

22

A.

23

Plaintiff is incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison and in as much as he names the

No Facts Alleged

24 Chief Medical Officer as a defendant and he identifies his inmate appeals as “HC,” or healthcare
25 appeals, the Court surmises he is bringing this action for violation of his right to medical care
26 under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, Plaintiff does not set
27 forth any facts regarding the basis for his claim or the relief he seeks. As a result, Plaintiff’s
28 complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court will provide Plaintiff
2

1 with an opportunity to amend, and in amending, Plaintiff should give the following legal standards
2 due consideration.
3

B.

4

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the

Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim Under Section 1983

5 violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011,
6 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones,
7 297 F.3d at 934. Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there
8 must exist some causal connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation
9 at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d
10 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012)
11 (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101
12 (2012).
13

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical

14 care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate
15 indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir.
16 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir.
17 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
18 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that
19 failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and
20 wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately
21 indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)).
22 Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain
23 or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122
24 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which
25 entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks
26 omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.
27 ///
28 ///
3

1

C.

2

Plaintiff is prohibited from suing the State of California, the California Department of

State and State Agencies Not Proper Parties

3 Corrections and Rehabilitation, or Pleasant Valley State Prison, all three of which listed in the
4 complaint. The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought against
5 the state. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation
6 marks omitted). While “[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against a state official for
7 prospective relief,” Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1065-66, suits against the state or its agencies are barred
8 absolutely, regardless of the form of relief sought, e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.
9 Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900 (1984); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Medical
10 Examiners, 678 F.3d 737, 740 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012).
11 IV.

Conclusion and Order

12

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

13 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar
14 v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.
15 2000).
16

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what

17 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights, Jones, 297 F.3d
18 at 934. Plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between each defendant’s conduct and the
19 violation of his rights; liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of
20 mere respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. Further,
21 although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief
22 above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
23

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey, 693 F.3d at 907

24 n.1, and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,”
25 Local Rule 220.
26

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

27

1.

28

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim
under section 1983;
4

1

2.

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

2

3.

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

3
4

amended complaint; and
4.

5

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this
action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 10, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
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