Koehn v. Ho et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING 1 Complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; Response due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/15/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY KOEHN,
Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

13
14

Case No. 1:15-CV-00265-JLT (PC)

(Doc. 1)

HO, et al.,
Defendants.

15

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

16
17
18

I.

Background
Plaintiff, Jeffrey Koehn, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of

19

Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on February 20, 2015.

20

(Doc. 1.)

21

A.

22

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

Screening Requirement

23

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

24

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

25

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

26

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

28
1

1

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

2

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp.

3

Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of

4

substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred

5

elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

6

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a

7

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the alleged

8

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487

9

U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

10

B.

11

Plaintiff complains that acts that occurred while he was detained at the Stanislaus County

12

Jail and names Chief Medical Officer Dr. Ho and Stanislaus County Sheriff, Adam Christianson

13

as the Defendants. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.

14

Summary of Plaintiff=s Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that he entered the jail with a "life threatening" hernia that required

15

surgical repair, but that while he was detained at the jail, he was assigned to a top bunk (which

16

made his hernia worse) and, despite being transported to the hospital three times regarding his

17

hernia, he was denied surgical intervention.

18

As discussed below, Plaintiff does not state any cognizable claims. However, Plaintiff

19

may be able to amend to correct the deficiencies in his pleading and is being given the applicable

20

pleading requirements and standards with leave to file a first amended complaint.

21
22

C.

Pleading Requirements
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

23

"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

24

exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

25

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain

26

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a).

27

"Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and

28

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.
2

1

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a

2

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

3

U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

4

Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is

5

plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual

6

allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S.

7

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.

8

While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft,

9

580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally

10

and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

11

However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations," Neitze

12

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may

13

not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled," Bruns v. Nat'l Credit

14

Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

15

268 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. Wal-

16

Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation

17

omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and

18

“facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the

19

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

20

If he chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should endeavor to make it as

21

concise as possible. He should merely state which of his constitutional rights he feels were

22

violated by each Defendant and its factual basis.

23
24
25
26
27

2. Linkage Requirement
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.

28
3

1

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

2

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See

3

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

4

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that A[a] person >subjects= another to the deprivation of a

5

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

6

in another=s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

7

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.@ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

8

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named

9

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff=s

10
11

federal rights.
Plaintiff must clearly state which Defendant(s) he feels are responsible for each violation

12

of his constitutional rights and their factual basis as a complaint must put each Defendant on

13

notice of Plaintiff=s claims against him or her. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th

14

Cir. 2004).

15

3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a)

16

Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a) states that "[a] party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim,

17

counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as alternate

18

claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party."

19

"Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not

20

be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different

21

defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim,

22

multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-

23

for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any

24

prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607

25

(7th Cir. 2007) citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

26

The fact that claims are premised on the same type of constitutional violation(s) (i.e.

27

retaliation) against multiple defendants does not make them factually related. Claims are related

28

where they are based on the same precipitating event, or a series of related events caused by the
4

1

same precipitating event. Plaintiff may not add unrelated claims to this action in his first amende

2

complaint.

3

D.

1. Eighth Amendment B Serious Medical Needs

4
5

Claims for Relief

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must

6

first Ashow a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner=s condition

7

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Second,

8

the plaintiff must show the defendants= response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@

9

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

10
11

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)).
The existence of a condition or injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and

12

worthy of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

13

individual=s daily activities, and the existence of chronic or substantial pain are indications of a

14

serious medical need. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing McGuckin v.

15

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc.

16

v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)) (quotation marks omitted); Doty v.

17

County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff=s allegation that he had a life

18

threatening hernia that required surgery presents a serious medical condition for screening

19

purposes.

20

The second prong requires showing: (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a

21

prisoner=s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference. Wilhelm, 680

22

F.3d at 1122 (quoting Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). More generally, deliberate indifference Amay

23

appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it

24

may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.@ Id. (internal

25

quotation marks omitted). Under Jett, A[a] prisoner need not show his harm was substantial.@ Id.;

26

see also McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (A[A] finding that the defendant=s activities resulted in

27

>substantial= harm to the prisoner is not necessary.@).

28

Plaintiff does not state any allegations to show that either defendant was aware of his
5

1

hernia and that it required surgical intervention, nor do his allegations show that either responded

2

to Plaintiff's need with deliberate indifference. Further, Plaintiff states that he wants the

3

defendants held accountable because they were negligent. However, before it can be said that a

4

prisoner=s civil rights have been abridged with regard to medical care, Athe indifference to his

5

medical needs must be substantial. Mere >indifference,= >negligence,= or >medical malpractice= will

6

not support this cause of action.@ Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th

7

Cir.1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). See also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060

8

(9th Cir.2004). Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against either of the Defendants for

9

being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the

10
11
12

Eight Amendment.
2. Supervisory Liability
Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their

13

employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a

14

supervisory position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be

15

specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld,

16

589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief

17

under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts that

18

would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the alleged

19

deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or

20

promulgated or "implemented a policy so deficient that the policy 'itself is a repudiation of

21

constitutional rights' and is 'the moving force of the constitutional violation.'" Hansen v. Black,

22

885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

23

(9th Cir. 1989). Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for

24

the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. "In

25

a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action - where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants - the

26

term 'supervisory liability' is a misnomer." Id. Knowledge and acquiescence of a subordinate's

27

misconduct is insufficient to establish liability; each government official is only liable for his or

28

her own misconduct. Id.
6

A>[B]are assertions . . . amount[ing] to nothing more than a Aformulaic recitation of the

1
2

elements@ of a constitutional discrimination claim,= for the purposes of ruling on a motion to

3

dismiss [and thus also for screening purposes], are not entitled to an assumption of truth.@ Moss,

4

572 F.3d at 969 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1951 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). ASuch

5

allegations are not to be discounted because they are >unrealistic or nonsensical,= but rather

6

because they do nothing more than state a legal conclusion B even if that conclusion is cast in the

7

form of a factual allegation.@ Id. Thus, any allegations that Dr. Ho and/or Sheriff Christianson

8

are somehow liable merely because their subordinates violated Plaintiff's rights will never be

9

cognizable.

10

II.

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, with leave to file a first

12

amended complaint within thirty days. If Plaintiff needs an extension of time to comply with this

13

order, Plaintiff shall file a motion seeking an extension of time no later than thirty days from the

14

date of service of this order.

15

Plaintiff must demonstrate in any first amended complaint how the conditions complained

16

of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d

17

227 (9th Cir. 1980). The first amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

18

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under section 1983 unless there is some

19

affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo

20

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v.

21

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

22

Plaintiff's first amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Such a short and

23

plain statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon

24

which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quoting Conley v.

25

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Although accepted as true, the "[f]actual allegations must be

26

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. 127, 555

27

(2007) (citations omitted).

28

Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original, Lacey v.
7

1

Maricopa County, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29,

2

2012) (en banc), and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

3

pleading," Local Rule 220.

4

The Court provides Plaintiff with opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified

5

by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff

6

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended

7

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

8

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

10

2.

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

11

3.

Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a

12

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

13

order; and

14

4.

15

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

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 15, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8