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)

Download PDF
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?