Scherffius v. Smith et al
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/14/15 ordering plaintiff's amended complaint 20 is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file a second amended complaint. The clerk of the court is directed to send plaintiff the court's form for filing a civil rights action. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL E. SCHERFFIUS,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-1277 DAD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER SMITH et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff‟s amended complaint.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
19
20
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
21
governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §
22
1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims
23
that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
24
granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
25
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).
26
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
27
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
28
Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
1
1
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
2
490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
3
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
4
Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
5
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only „a short and plain
6
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,‟ in order to „give the
7
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.‟” Bell Atlantic
8
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
9
However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more
10
than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
11
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550
12
U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the
13
allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.
14
738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all
15
doubts in the plaintiff‟s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
16
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
17
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.
18
19
20
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the
21
actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See
22
Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362
23
(1976). “A person „subjects‟ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the
24
meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or
25
omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which
26
complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
27
28
Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of
their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant
2
1
holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional
2
violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);
3
Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations
4
concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
5
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
6
BACKGROUND
7
In his amended complaint, plaintiff has identified fourteen doctors and other prison
8
medical personnel as the defendants in this action. As in his original complaint, plaintiff alleges
9
that he suffers from a spinal condition and that, since 2007, defendants have failed to provide him
10
with adequate medical care. In this regard, plaintiff alleges that the defendants have ignored his
11
medical condition as well as his pain and suffering in violation of his rights under the Eighth
12
Amendment. In terms of relief, plaintiff requests the award of damages and injunctive relief.
13
(Am. Compl at 9-30 & Exs.)
14
15
DISCUSSION
The allegations in plaintiff‟s amended complaint remain so vague and conclusory that the
16
court is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for
17
relief. The amended complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed.
18
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must
19
give fair notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim
20
plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).
21
Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants
22
engaged in that support his claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the
23
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the amended complaint must be dismissed. In the
24
interests of justice, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.
25
If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must allege facts
26
demonstrating how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of his federal
27
constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The
28
amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the
3
1
deprivation of plaintiff‟s rights. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is
2
some affirmative link or connection between a defendant‟s actions and the claimed deprivation.
3
Rizzo, 423 U.S. 362; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson, 588 F.2d at
4
743. Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not
5
sufficient. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268.
6
It remains clear from the allegations of plaintiff‟s amended complaint that he is
7
dissatisfied with the medical care he has received in connection with his spinal condition while
8
incarcerated. However, as the court previously advised plaintiff, the United States Supreme
9
Court has held that inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment
10
cognizable under § 1983 unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to
11
serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). In general, deliberate
12
indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with
13
medical treatment, or may be shown by the way in which prison officials provide medical care.
14
Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988).
15
In any second amended complaint plaintiff elects to file, he will need to allege specific
16
facts demonstrating how each named defendant‟s actions rose to the level of “deliberate
17
indifference.” Plaintiff is advised that mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison
18
medical staff or between medical professionals as to the proper course of treatment for a medical
19
condition do not give rise to a § 1983 claim. See Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
20
1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996); Sanchez v. Vild,
21
891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). In
22
this regard, plaintiff‟s difference opinion with the defendant doctors about the medication that
23
should be administered to him, for example, does not by itself state a cognizable claim under the
24
Eighth Amendment.
25
In addition, before it can be said that a prisoner‟s civil rights have been abridged, “the
26
indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere „indifference,‟ „negligence,‟ or
27
„medical malpractice‟ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d
28
458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). See also Wood v. Housewright, 900
4
1
F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (“In determining deliberate indifference, we scrutinize the
2
particular facts and look for substantial indifference in the individual case, indicating more than
3
mere negligence or isolated occurrences of neglect.”). The court observes that throughout
4
plaintiff‟s amended complaint, he acknowledges that defendant doctors and medical personnel
5
have seen him dozens of times, referred him to specialists and for various diagnostic testing, and
6
prescribed him pain medication and provided him physical therapy. In this regard, plaintiff‟s own
7
allegations appear to belie any claim that the named defendants have ignored his spinal condition
8
or failed to treat it in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
9
Finally, the court notes that delays in providing medical care may manifest deliberate
10
indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising
11
from delay in providing care, however, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the delay was
12
harmful. See Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059;
13
Wood, 900 F.2d at 1335; Hunt v. Dental Dep‟t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989); Shapley v.
14
Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm‟rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). “A prisoner need not
15
show his harm was substantial; however, such would provide additional support for the inmate‟s
16
claim that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to his needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
17
1096 (9th Cir. 2006). See also McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.
18
Plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make his
19
second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be
20
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an
21
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th
22
Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the prior pleading no longer serves
23
any function in the case. Therefore, in any second amended complaint plaintiff may elect to file,
24
as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be
25
sufficiently alleged.
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
5
1
CONCLUSION
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
1. Plaintiff‟s amended complaint (Doc. No. 20) is dismissed;
4
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second
5
amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules
6
of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the
7
docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; failure
8
to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation
9
that this action be dismissed without prejudice; and
10
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court‟s form for filing a civil
11
rights action.
12
Dated: March 14, 2015
13
14
15
16
DAD:9
sche1277.14am
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?