Stanley v. California Medical Facility et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/12/2017 DISMISSING CASE WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff to file amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. Defendant California Medical Facility is DISMISSED from this action. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVEN E. STANLEY, JR.,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1070-CMK

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY,
et al.,

15
Defendant.
16
17

/
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
11

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he had a lower bunk chrono due to his back

12

and hip problems. The claims defendant McAllister took away his lower bunk chrono,

13

apparently due to a computer error, and he was reassigned to an upper bunk. While trying to

14

climb up on the upper bunk, plaintiff fell and injured his arm. Three days later, his lower bunk

15

chrono was reinstated.

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 his lower bunk chrono was taken away due to a computer

2

error. Plaintiff does not state how long he was required to endure the upper bunk assignment, or

3

what was attempted to resolve the error, if anything. There is also no indication in the complaint

4

that Dr. McAllister acted in a deliberately indifferent manner toward plaintiff’s needs. It appears

5

that the lower bunk chono was reinstated shortly after it was revoked. The facts as alleged fail to

6

provide sufficient detail to show Dr. McAllister was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical

7

needs. However, plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint in an

8

attempt to state facts sufficient to state a claim.

9

As to defendant the California Medical Facility, there are no factual allegations

10

against the facility at all, and the Eleventh Amendment provides protection against the

11

institution. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against

12

a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v. Sulphur

13

Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition extends to

14

suits against states themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr.,

15

66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

16

1989). A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a state

17

agency for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782

18

(1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th cir. 1993) (en banc). As

19

such, the California Medical Facility will be dismissed from this action.

20
21

III. CONCLUSION
Because it is possible that the deficiencies in plaintiff’s claim against defendant

22

McAllister may be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior

23

to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)

24

(en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

25

original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus,

26

following dismissal with leave to amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are
4

1

not alleged in the amended complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

2

Cir. 1987). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior

3

pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An

4

amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

5

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

6

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

7

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

8

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

9

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

10
11

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

12

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

13

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply

14

with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

15

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

18

2.

Defendant California Medical Facility is dismissed from this action; 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
25

DATED: May 12, 2017
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6