Lear v. Manasrah
Filing
10
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/15/17: 30-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint - blank form)(Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
CASE No. 1:17-cv-00071-MJS (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
(ECF No. 1)
D. AVILA, et al.,
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On February 15, 2017, the Court severed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Avila, Christensen, and Lewis, and transferred them to the Sacramento Division of the
Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 9.) His claims against Defendant Manasrah are
before the Court for screening.
I.
Screening Requirement
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has
raised claims that are legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which
1
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
2
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion
3
thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
4
determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may
5
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’s Allegations
2
Plaintiff is incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”), where the majority
3
of the acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. However, his claims against Defendant
4
Manasrah arose at Corcoran State Prison.
5
Plaintiff’s only allegation against Defendant Manasrah is as follows: Plaintiff is
6
mobility impaired. While at Corcoran State Prison, Plaintiff fell down bus steps several
7
times. Defendant Manasrah intentionally refused to “address” these falls. As a result,
8
Plaintiff’s back condition worsened and Plaintiff experienced unnecessary pain.
9
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, transfer out of HDSP, and a declaration that his
10
rights were violated at HDSP.
11
IV.
Analysis
12
A.
13
As stated, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Avila, Christensen and Lewis that
14
arose at HDSP were severed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for transfer out of HDSP
15
and a declaration that his rights were violated at that facility will be dismissed from this
16
action.
17
B.
Severance
Eighth Amendment
18
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Manasrah failed to “address” Plaintiff’s falls. The
19
nature of this claim is unclear. That is, the Court cannot discern whether Plaintiff
20
expected Manasrah to provide medical care, to remedy some aspect of the bus steps
21
that caused Plaintiff to fall, to otherwise protect Plaintiff from injury, or something else
22
altogether. Plaintiff does not explain how he came into contact with Manasrah, what was
23
communicated to him or her regarding the falls, how Manasrah responded, or why the
24
response was deficient. He therefore fails to state a claim. The Court will provide below
25
the legal standards applicable to various Eighth Amendment claims. Plaintiff will be given
26
leave to amend.
27
28
3
1
1.
Inadequate Medical Care
2
The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits
3
deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners. McGuckin v. Smith,
4
974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). A claim of medical indifference requires (1) a
5
serious medical need, and (2) a deliberately indifferent response by defendant. Jett v.
6
Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). The deliberate indifference standard is met
7
by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible
8
medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference. Id. Where a prisoner alleges
9
deliberate indifference based on a delay in medical treatment, the prisoner must show
10
that the delay led to further injury. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir.
11
2002); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060a; Shapley v. Nevada Bd. Of State Prison Comm’rs,
12
766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). Delay which does not cause harm is
13
insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference. Shapley, 766 F.2d at 407
14
(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
15
“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
16
1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be
17
aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
18
serious harm exists,’ but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting
19
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). “‘If a prison official should have been
20
aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment,
21
no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Gibson, 290 F.3d at
22
1188). Mere indifference, negligence, or medical malpractice is not sufficient to support
23
the claim. Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle v.
24
Gamble, 429 U.S. 87, 105-06 (1976)). A prisoner can establish deliberate indifference by
25
showing that officials intentionally interfered with his medical treatment for reasons
26
unrelated to the prisoner’s medical needs. See Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066
27
(9th Cir. 1992); Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105.
28
4
1
2.
Conditions of Confinement
2
The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide all prisoners with the
3
basic necessities of life, which include food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care,
4
and personal safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “[A] prison
5
official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions
6
of confinement only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and
7
disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v.
8
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).
9
A conditions of confinement claim has both an objective and a subjective
10
component. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “First, the deprivation alleged must be . . .
11
sufficiently serious,” and must “result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of
12
life’s necessities.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) “[E]xtreme
13
deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim.” Hudson v.
14
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992).
15
Second, the prison official must have acted with “deliberate indifference” to inmate
16
health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. “Mere negligence is not sufficient to establish
17
liability.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Rather, a plaintiff must
18
show that a defendant knew of, but disregarded, an excessive risk to inmate health or
19
safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. That is, “the official must both be aware of facts from
20
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
21
must also draw the inference.” Id.
22
V.
Conclusion and Order
23
Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable claim against Defendant
24
Manasrah. The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll
25
v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he
26
must demonstrate that the alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional
27
rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to
28
‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
5
1
(2007)). Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each named Defendant personally
2
participated in a deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
3
2002). Plaintiff is reminded that his claims arising at HDSP have been severed. To
4
the extent Plaintiff wishes to pursue such allegations, he must do so in Case No.
5
No. 2:17-cv-00326 EFB, filed in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of
6
California.
7
Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it
8
is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
9
Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on
10
curing the deficiencies set forth above.
11
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
12
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule,
13
an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d
14
55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no
15
longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an
16
original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be
17
sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First
18
Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed
19
under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P.
20
8(a). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a
21
right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations
22
omitted).
23
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
24
1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
25
26
27
may be granted;
2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form and a
copy of his complaint, filed January 17, 2017;
28
6
1
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a
2
first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this
3
order or a notice of voluntary dismissal;
4
4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal,
5
the Court will recommend the action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to
6
state a claim, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 1915(g).
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 15, 2017
/s/
11
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?