Duran v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al,
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 6/23/15 ORDERING that plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JASON DURAN,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:14-cv-1080-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
/
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff, a proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
21
against a governmental entity or 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 it: (1) is frivolous or
23
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
24
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
25
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement
26
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means
1
1
that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
2
1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
3
complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
4
rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege
5
with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
6
claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
7
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
8
and conclusory.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. His allegations, as
set forth in his compliant, consist of the following paragraph:
Each defendant either promulgated or supported a policy of
denying me psychological treatment for my sex offence (which was
against a minor) at the time of my incarceration (2002-2012) the
CDCR specifically and explicitly did not provide sex offender
treatment. Further, because I was incarcerated and indigent, I
could not seek treatment on my own. After my release this lack of
treatment contributed to my re-offense (I’m facing 20 years in
federal prison for child porn). The Constitutional violation is an
9th amendment cruel and unusual punishment. The CDCR’s
policy of not providing treatment amounts to deliberate
indifference.
(Compl., Doc. 1, at 3).
II. DISCUSSION
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
21
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
22
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based
23
on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.
24
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however
25
inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639,
26
640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
2
1
In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain
2
more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements
3
of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other
4
words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
5
statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon
6
which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim
7
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
8
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
9
678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
10
court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and
11
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
12
U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
13
The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory
14
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules of Civil
15
Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the
16
elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d
17
646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt
18
acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. See id. Plaintiff’s complaint
19
must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
20
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the
21
conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
22
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms
23
how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless
24
there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed
25
deprivation. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th
26
Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and
3
1
conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
2
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
3
It appears plaintiff is unhappy with the lack of medical treatment he received. He
4
does not however, set forth any specific facts as to what treatment was necessary and how any of
5
the defendants specifically denied him necessary treatment.
6
Plaintiff is informed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the
7
conditions under which the prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth
8
Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509
9
U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment
10
“embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.”
11
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh
12
and restrictive. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison
13
officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and
14
personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official
15
violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the
16
official’s act or omission must be so serious such that it results in the denial of the minimal
17
civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2) subjectively, the prison official must have acted
18
unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
19
Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable
20
mind.” See id.
21
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious
22
injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at
23
105; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental
24
health needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). An injury or illness is
25
sufficiently serious if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant
26
injury or the “. . . unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d
4
1
1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994).
2
Factors indicating seriousness are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the condition
3
is worthy of comment; (2) whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner’s daily
4
activities; and (3) whether the condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. See
5
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
6
The requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in medical needs cases
7
than in other Eighth Amendment contexts because the responsibility to provide inmates with
8
medical care does not generally conflict with competing penological concerns. See McGuckin,
9
974 F.2d at 1060. Thus, deference need not be given to the judgment of prison officials as to
10
decisions concerning medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.
11
1989). The complete denial of medical attention may constitute deliberate indifference. See
12
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay in providing medical
13
treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference.
14
See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. Where delay is alleged, however, the prisoner must also
15
demonstrate that the delay led to further injury. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.
16
Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give
17
rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a
18
difference of opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate
19
course of treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh,
20
90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).
21
22
III. CONCLUSION
Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
23
amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire
24
action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is
25
informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
26
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to
5
1
amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended
2
complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if
3
plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make
4
plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be
5
complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
6
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the
7
conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
8
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
9
each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
10
between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
11
164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
12
Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the
13
time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
14
1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
15
with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
16
See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1.
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and
19
2.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of
20
service of this order.
21
22
23
24
DATED: June 23, 2015
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
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?