Ruiz v. Arakaki

Filing 24

ORDER striking 16 Amended Complaint and requiring Plaintiff to file Second Amended Compliant in English Language signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/19/2017. (Second Amended Complaint due by 11/22/2017). (Attachments: # 1 Complaint Form). (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. L. ARAKAKI, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01404-SAB (PC) ORDER STRIKING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [ECF No. 16] Plaintiff Rogelio May Ruiz is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 17, 2017, this action was transferred to this Court by the 19 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on September 22, 2017. 21 (ECF No. 16.) The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against 22 a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915A(a). In reviewing Plaintiff’s amended complaint, it appears that he is attempting to bring a 24 claim against L. Arakaki and F. Hanna for denial of appropriate dental treatment. However, with the 25 exception of a few filled-in blanks and a one page letter to the court attempting to outline his 26 allegations, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is not written in the English language. 27 28 Plaintiff is advised that all federal court filings must be in the English language. The Court cannot provide Plaintiff with translated documents, nor will it translate his documents from Spanish to 1 1 English. While Plaintiff submits that he has difficulty with the English language, it is in the discretion 2 of prison officials to best determine how to ensure that “inmate with language problems have a 3 reasonably adequate opportunity to file nonfrivolous legal claims challenging their convictions or 4 conditions of confinement.” Lewis v. Carey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996). The use of jailhouse lawyers 5 is one recognized avenue available to ensure that non-English speaking and/or illiterate inmates have 6 meaningful access to the courts. Id. at 356-57. Plaintiff should seek assistance at his institution for 7 translation services, and is not precluded from filing any motion for a reasonable extension of time to 8 comply with this order, if necessary. To assist Plaintiff in presenting a claim for deliberate indifference to his dental needs, the 9 10 Court will provide Plaintiff with the applicable legal standard. While the Eighth Amendment of the 11 United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only 12 when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. 13 McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 14 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); 15 Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need 16 by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the 17 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was 18 deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate 19 indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible 20 medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 21 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than 22 ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 23 680 F.3d at 1122. To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or 24 causal connection, between each defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal rights. 25 Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 26 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed September 22, 2017 (ECF No. 16), is STRICKEN from the record as not written in the English-language; 4 2. The Clerk Office shall send Plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form; 5 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 6 amended complaint in the English-language; and 4. 7 8 Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 12 October 19, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?