Deere v. CDC Medical Staff, et al.
Filing
23
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/4/2017 DISMISSING 21 First Amended Complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ARTHUR RAY DEERE, SR.,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-1695-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
CDC MEDICAL STAFF, et al.,
15
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1915A
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action
18
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He has filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 21, which is now
19
before the court for screening.
20
I.
21
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
22
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
24
of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
25
relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
26
relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
27
28
1
Screening Requirement and Standards
This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local
Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
1
1
A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)
2
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and
3
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
4
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
5
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
6
While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,
7
its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
8
U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
9
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked
10
assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
11
action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
12
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
13
678.
14
Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.
15
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
16
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
17
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a
18
claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.
19
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
20
plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
21
II.
22
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to § 1915A and concludes
Screening Order
23
that it must be dismissed with leave to amend. It alleges that “CDC Medical Staff refused
24
treatment for one reason or another until the hepatitis “C” virus ravaged [plaintiff’s] liver and . . .
25
gave [plaintiff] treatment after [his] liver was destroyed beyond repair and condemning [plaintiff]
26
to a slow and painful death.” ECF No. 21, § IV. It names CDC Medical Staff, Dr. Rudas, and
27
Dr. Chau as defendants and seeks damages as relief. Id. at 1, §§ II, IV. As discussed below, the
28
complaint must be dismissed because it names unidentifiable defendants, fails to properly link the
2
1
identified defendants to a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal rights, and is otherwise too vague and
2
conclusory to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
3
First, the complaint improperly names unidentified CDC Medical Staff as defendants.
4
Unknown persons cannot be served with process until they are identified by their real names and
5
the court will not investigate the names and identities of unnamed defendants. If the court
6
ultimately orders service by the U.S. Marshal of any amended complaint, and plaintiff
7
subsequently learns the identity of a party he wishes to serve, he may move pursuant to Rule 15
8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file another amended complaint to add that individual
9
as a defendant.2 See Brass v. County of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2003).
10
Second, the complaint identifies two individual defendants but fails to allege how either
11
one of them was personally involved in the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights. To state a claim
12
under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right;
13
and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West
14
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An
15
individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s
16
personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the
17
defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black,
18
885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978).
19
Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, plaintiff must allege with at least
20
some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim.
21
Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff may not sue any
22
official on the theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her
23
subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Because respondeat superior liability
24
is inapplicable to § 1983 suits, “a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,
25
through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id.
26
27
28
2
If the timing of an amended complaint raises questions as to the statute of limitations,
plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Rule 15(c), which is the controlling procedure for
adding defendants whose identities were discovered after commencement of the action.
3
1
Third, the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim of deliberate
2
indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. To succeed on an Eighth
3
Amendment claim predicated on the denial of medical care, a plaintiff must establish that he had
4
a serious medical need and that the defendant’s response to that need was deliberately indifferent.
5
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
6
(1976). A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat the condition could result in further
7
significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.
8
Deliberate indifference may be shown by the denial, delay or intentional interference with
9
medical treatment or by the way in which medical care is provided. Hutchinson v. United States,
10
838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).
11
To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from
12
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also
13
draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Thus, a defendant is liable if
14
he knows that plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing
15
to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. A physician need not fail to treat an inmate
16
altogether in order to violate that inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. Ortiz v. City of Imperial,
17
884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). A failure to competently treat a serious medical condition,
18
even if some treatment is prescribed, may constitute deliberate indifference in a particular case.
19
Id.
20
It is important to differentiate common law negligence claims of malpractice from claims
21
predicated on violations of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
22
In asserting the latter, “[m]ere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not
23
support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.
24
1980) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-106 (1976); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391
25
F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004).
26
For these reasons, the amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff will
27
be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if plaintiff can allege a cognizable legal theory
28
against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal theory. Lopez v.
4
1
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must afford pro se
2
litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). Should plaintiff
3
choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and
4
allegations against each defendant.
5
Any amended complaint must not exceed the scope of this order and may not add new,
6
unrelated claims. Further, any amended complaint must cure the deficiencies identified above
7
and also adhere to the following requirements:
8
9
Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally
participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v.
10
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a
11
constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is
12
legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). It must also contain a caption
13
including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
14
Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself
15
without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R. 220. This is because an amended
16
complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the
17
earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
18
F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter
19
being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
20
1967)).
21
Finally, the court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
22
Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed.
23
See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.
24
III.
25
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended complaint (ECF No. 21) is
26
dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The second amended complaint must bear the
27
docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure to
28
comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or
Summary of Order
5
1
failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the
2
court will proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal.
3
DATED: October 4, 2017.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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?