Dangerfield v. Unknown
Filing
16
ORDER Discharing Order to Show Cause; Discharging Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to OSC; and Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/18/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LONNIE DANGERFIELD,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
UNKNOWN, et al.,
Defendants.
15
Case No. 1:16-cv-00806-JLT (PC)
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE; DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO OSC; and DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(Docs. 6, 14, 15)
30-DAY DEADLINE
16
17
18
19
I.
EXHAUSTION
On September 22, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should
20
not be dismissed without prejudice for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to
21
filing suit. (Doc. 14.) On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 60-day extension
22
of time to file his response to the OSC. (Doc. 15.) In his motion, Plaintiff explained that he filed
23
an administrative appeal on the issues he intends to raise in this action, but was subsequently
24
transferred back and forth between the hospital and various facilities which caused him to miss
25
deadlines to appeal to higher levels as paperwork and property is frequently lost when an inmate
26
is transferred. (Id.) The Court does not now comment on the sufficiency of this explanation for
27
Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the deadlines. Rather, he may be required to demonstrate that the
28
grievance process was unavailable to him through no fault of his own should the issue be raised
1
1
by the defense on summary judgment. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir.
2
2010); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010); Brown, 422 F.3d at 939-40.
3
However, because exhaustion is an affirmative defense and not a pleading requirement, see Jones
4
v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007), the Court DISCHARGES the order to show cause. Thus,
5
Plaintiff’s motion for a 60-day extension of time to respond to the OSC is DISREGARDED.
6
II.
THE COMPLAINT
7
A.
Screening Requirement
8
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
9
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
10
Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
11
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary
12
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C.
13
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). If an action is dismissed on one of these three basis, a strike is imposed
14
per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An inmate who has had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed
15
as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and has
16
not alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury does not qualify to proceed in forma
17
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015).
18
B.
Summary of Allegations
19
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing 26 pages of exhibits. (Doc. 1.) Thereafter, Plaintiff
20
filed a form Complaint on which he filled in only his name, prisoner number, institutional
21
address, checked the boxes that there is a grievance procedure at the institution and that he did not
22
present the facts in his complaint through the grievance procedures, and signed it. (See Doc. 6,
23
pp. 1-3.) This is insufficient.
24
From his exhibits, it appears that Plaintiff may attempt to pursue claims related to an
25
incident that occurred on September 16, 2015 when his wheelchair was not properly fastened and
26
came untethered, which caused him injury. (See Doc. 1, pp. 1-4.) However, Plaintiff has not
27
stated any factual allegations for the Court to determine which of his federal constitutional rights
28
he feels were violated in that accident. Plaintiff may be able to correct the deficiencies in his
2
1
pleading so as to state a cognizable claim. Thus, the Court includes the pleading requirements,
2
the standards for deliberate indifference to his safety under the Eight Amendment (which appears
3
the most likely claim Plaintiff may have intended to state), and leave to file a first amended
4
complaint.
5
C.
6
Pleading Requirements
1.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
7
"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited
8
exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534
9
U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain
10
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a).
11
"Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and
12
the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.
13
Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
14
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
15
U.S. 662, 678 (2009), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
16
Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is
17
plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual
18
allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S.
19
Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.
20
While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft,
21
580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally
22
and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
23
However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations," Neitze
24
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may
25
not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled," Bruns v. Nat'l Credit
26
Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
27
268 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. Wal-
28
Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
3
1
omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
2
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the
3
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
4
If he chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should make it as concise as
5
possible. He should merely state which of his constitutional rights he feels were violated by each
6
Defendant and its factual basis. It is insufficient for Plaintiff to merely append documents to
7
the complaint and rely on the Court to plead his complaint for him. This is not the Court’s
8
role and, if he persists in this manner, the Court will be forced to dismiss the matter for his
9
failure to state a claim.
10
11
2.
Linkage Requirement
The Civil Rights Act (42 USC § 1983) requires that there be an actual connection or link
12
between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by
13
Plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423
14
U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that A[a] person >subjects= another to the deprivation
15
of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act,
16
participates in another=s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to
17
do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.@ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743
18
(9th Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each
19
named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of
20
Plaintiff=s federal rights.
21
Plaintiff must clearly state which defendant he feels is responsible for each violation of his
22
constitutional rights and their factual basis as his complaint must put each defendant on notice of
23
Plaintiff=s claims against him. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004).
24
25
3.
Exhibits
The Court is not a repository for the parties' evidence. Originals, or copies of evidence
26
(i.e., prison or medical records, witness affidavits, etc.) need not be submitted until the course of
27
litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary judgment, at
28
trial, or when requested by the Court). If Plaintiff attaches exhibits to his amended complaint,
4
1
each exhibit must be specifically referenced. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c). For example, Plaintiff must
2
state "see Exhibit A" or something similar in order to direct the Court to the specific exhibit
3
Plaintiff is referencing. Further, if the exhibit consists of more than one page, Plaintiff must
4
reference the specific page of the exhibit (i.e. "See Exhibit A, page 3").
5
At this point, the submission of evidence is premature as Plaintiff is only required to state
6
a prima facie claim for relief. However, Plaintiff may not simply present exhibits and hope for
7
the Court to miraculously divine the claims he intends to pursue and the facts upon which they are
8
based as Acourts should not undertake to infer [a] cause of action” . . . “>[T]he party who brings a
9
suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon.=@ O=Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d
10
1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1999)
11
(internal quotations and citation omitted)).
12
Plaintiff is reminded that, for screening purposes, the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s
13
factual allegations are true. It is thus unnecessary for a plaintiff to submit exhibits in support of
14
the allegations in a complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he would do
15
well to merely identify a constitutional right he feels was violated and state the facts upon which
16
he feels the violation occurred.
17
18
19
D.
Claims for Relief
1.
Eighth Amendment -- Safety
"The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined
20
are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832,
21
(1994) (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993)). Prison officials have a duty "to take
22
reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates, which has been interpreted to include a
23
duty to protect prisoners." Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of America, 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (citing
24
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832-33; Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005)).
25
To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must "show that the officials acted with
26
deliberate indifference to threat of serious harm or injury to an inmate." Labatad, at 1160 (citing
27
Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). This involves both objective
28
and subjective components.
5
1
First, objectively, the alleged deprivation must be "sufficiently serious" and where a
2
failure to prevent harm is alleged, "the inmate must show that he is incarcerated under conditions
3
posing a substantial risk of serious harm." Id. at 834, quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,
4
349, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981). Second, subjectively, the prison official must "know of and
5
disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Id. at 837; Anderson v. County of Kern,
6
45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995). A prison official must "be aware of facts from which the
7
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and . . . must also draw the
8
inference." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Liability may follow only if a prison official "knows that
9
inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
10
11
12
13
reasonable measures to abate it." Id. at 847.
2.
Claims Under California Law
a.
California Tort Claims Act
Under the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”), set forth in California Government Code
14
sections 810 et seq., a plaintiff may not bring a suit for monetary damages against a public
15
employee or entity unless the plaintiff first presented the claim to the California Victim
16
Compensation and Government Claims Board (“VCGCB” or “Board”), and the Board acted on
17
the claim, or the time for doing so expired. “The Tort Claims Act requires that any civil
18
complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity.”
19
Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 860 (1995). The purpose of this
20
requirement is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately
21
investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” City of
22
San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447, 455, 115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701 (1974)
23
(citations omitted). Compliance with this “claim presentation requirement” constitutes an
24
element of a cause of action for damages against a public entity or official. State v. Superior
25
Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1244, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 90 P.3d 116 (2004). Thus, in the state
26
courts, “failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim presentation
27
requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state a cause of
28
action.” Id. at 1239, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 534, 90 P.3d 116 (fn.omitted).
6
1
Federal courts likewise must require compliance with the CTCA for pendant state law
2
claims that seek damages against state public employees or entities. Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d
3
702, 704 (9th Cir.1969); Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477
4
(9th Cir.1995). State tort claims included in a federal action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
5
may proceed only if the claims were first presented to the state in compliance with the claim
6
presentation requirement. Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 627
7
(9th Cir.1988); Butler v. Los Angeles County, 617 F.Supp.2d 994, 1001 (C.D.Cal.2008).
8
While Plaintiff’s exhibits show that he filed a government claim form, there is nothing
9
upon which to find that he complied with the CTCA beyond the initial filing of a government
10
11
claim.
b.
Negligence
12
“An action in negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal
13
duty, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was a proximate or legal cause of
14
injuries suffered by the plaintiff. [Citations.]” Regents of the Univ. of California v. Superior
15
Court of Los Angeles Cty., 240 Cal. App. 4th 1296, 1310 (2015), reh'g denied (Oct. 26, 2015)
16
quoting Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 673 (Ann M.)
17
[disapproved on another ground in Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 527, fn. 5].)
18
"In order to establish liability on a negligence theory, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach,
19
causation and damages. The threshold element of a cause of action for negligence is the existence
20
of a duty to use due care toward an interest of another that enjoys legal protection against
21
unintentional invasion. Whether this essential prerequisite to a negligence cause of action has
22
been satisfied in a particular case is a question of law to be resolved by the court. To say that
23
someone owes another a duty of care is a shorthand statement of a conclusion, rather than an aid
24
to analysis in itself. [D]uty is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of
25
those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to
26
protection. [L]egal duties are not discoverable facts of nature, but merely conclusory expressions
27
that, in cases of a particular type, liability should be imposed for damage done.” Los Angeles
28
Memorial Coliseum Commission v. Insomaniac, Inc. 233 Cal.App.4th 803, 908 (2015) (citations
7
1
and quotations omitted).
2
c.
3
Supplemental Jurisdiction
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original
4
jurisdiction, the district court Ashall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the
5
action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under
6
Article III,@ except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). A[O]nce judicial power exists under '
7
1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is
8
discretionary.@ Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). AThe district court
9
may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the
10
district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.@ 28 U.S.C. '
11
1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has cautioned that Aif the federal claims are dismissed before
12
trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.@ United Mine Workers of America v.
13
Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).
14
15
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with leave to file a first
16
amended complaint within thirty days. If Plaintiff no longer desires to pursue this action, he may
17
file a notice of voluntary dismissal.
18
Plaintiff must demonstrate in any first amended complaint how the conditions complained
19
of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d
20
227 (9th Cir. 1980). The first amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named
21
defendant is involved. There can be no liability under section 1983 unless there is some
22
affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo
23
v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v.
24
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
25
Plaintiff's first amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Such a short and
26
plain statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
27
which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quoting Conley v.
28
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Although accepted as true, the "[f]actual allegations must be
8
1
[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. 127, 555
2
(2007) (citations omitted).
3
Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original, Lacey v.
4
Maricopa County, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29,
5
2012) (en banc), and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded
6
pleading," Local Rule 220.
7
The Court provides Plaintiff with one final opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies
8
identified by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).
9
Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first
10
amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no "buckshot"
11
complaints).
12
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
1. The order for Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his
13
failure to exhaust administrative remedies that issued on September 22, 2016 (Doc.
14
14) is DISCHARGED;
15
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the order to show
16
cause, filed on October 7, 2016 (Doc. 15) is DISREGARDED since moot;
17
3. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;
18
4. The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;
19
5. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a first
20
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or a
21
notice of voluntary dismissal; and
22
6. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to
23
obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 18, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
9
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?