Roseberry v. Ramirez et al
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/12/2017 DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend; defendant Seali is DISMISSED from this action; and plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days.(Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN ROSEBERRY,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
R. RAMIREZ, et al.
Defendant.
16
17
No. 2:16-cv-0766-CMK
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
19
636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court is
20
plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
21
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
22
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
24
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
25
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
26
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “short and plain statement
1
1
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means
2
that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
3
1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
4
complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
5
rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege
6
with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
7
claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
8
impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
9
and conclusory.
10
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
11
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Ramirez ignored his request to be
12
allowed to go to the medical clinic to get a new oxygen tank when his ran out. He alleges he had
13
to bang on the yard door to get another officer to allow him out to the clinic, which delayed
14
getting his oxygen tank refill for 10 to 15 minutes. He further alleges that he reported this
15
incident to Ramirez’s supervisor, defendant Seali, who never addressed his complaint.
16
17
II. DISCUSSION
The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the
18
prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel
19
and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan,
20
511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “embodies broad and idealistic concepts of
21
dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102
22
(1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v.
23
Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with
24
“food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy,
25
801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only
26
when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious
2
1
such that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2)
2
subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of
3
inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison
4
official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id.
5
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious
6
injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at
7
105; see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental
8
health needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). An injury or illness is
9
sufficiently serious if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant
10
injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,
11
1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994).
12
Factors indicating seriousness are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the condition
13
is worthy of comment; (2) whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner’s daily
14
activities; and (3) whether the condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. See
15
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
16
The requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in medical needs cases
17
than in other Eighth Amendment contexts because the responsibility to provide inmates with
18
medical care does not generally conflict with competing penological concerns. See McGuckin,
19
974 F.2d at 1060. Thus, deference need not be given to the judgment of prison officials as to
20
decisions concerning medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.
21
1989). The complete denial of medical attention may constitute deliberate indifference. See
22
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay in providing medical
23
treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference.
24
See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. Where delay is alleged, however, the prisoner must also
25
demonstrate that the delay led to further injury. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.
26
///
3
1
Here, plaintiff alleges he was delayed in getting to the clinic for 10 to 15 minutes.
2
He states his oxygen tank was registering empty, and he needed a new tank. However, there is
3
no indication that a slight delay in obtaining a new tank was a significant risk to plaintiff’s
4
immediate health. Plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient facts to state a claim, such as the reason
5
the oxygen is necessary and what happens if he goes without oxygen for a short amount of time.
6
The court finds there is simply not enough facts alleged to find plaintiff has stated a claim against
7
defendant Ramirez. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint in
8
order try to cure the defects in his claim.
9
As to defendant Seali, the only allegation is that defendant Seali failed to act upon
10
plaintiff’s complaint about Ramirez’s behavior. There is no indication that defendant Seali was
11
involved in the incident at all.
12
Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their
13
employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no
14
respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional
15
violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See id. The
16
Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be liable based on
17
knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct because government
18
officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct
19
and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Supervisory
20
personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of
21
constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, however, be
22
liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v.
23
Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
24
When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such
25
defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v.
26
Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.
4
1
1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel
2
in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
3
Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
4
official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676.
5
6
7
8
9
As there are no allegations to indicate defendant Seali was personally involved,
defendant Seali will be dismissed from this action.
III. CONCLUSION
Because it is possible that the deficiencies in plaintiff’s claim against defendant
Ramirez may be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to
10
dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)
11
(en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the
12
original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus,
13
following dismissal with leave to amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are
14
not alleged in the amended complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
15
Cir. 1987). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior
16
pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An
17
amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
18
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the
19
conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
20
Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
21
each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
22
between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
23
164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
24
Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the
25
time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
26
1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
5
1
with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
2
See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1.
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;
5
2.
Defendant Seali is dismissed from this action; and
6
2.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of
7
service of this order.
8
9
10
11
12
DATED: May 12, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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?