Valenzuela v. CSP Sacramento et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/05/17 granting 12 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be paid in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff is granted 30 days to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within 30 days, this action will proceed on plaintiffs claim arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Bodenhamer and all other defendants and claims will be dismissed. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANTOS VALENZUELA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. No. 2:16-cv-1814 CKD P ORDER CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document the court construes as a 18 complaint seeking injunctive relief as well as damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also 19 seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 20 Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has consented to have all matters 21 in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 22 23 24 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 25 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect 26 twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account and 27 forward it to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, 28 until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 1 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 2 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 3 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 6 The court has conducted the required screening and finds that plaintiff’s complaint states a 7 claim upon which plaintiff may proceed under the Eighth Amendment for denial of medical care 8 against defendant Bodenhamer. With respect to the other claims and defendants identified in 9 plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 10 At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may either proceed on his claim against 11 defendant Bodenhamer; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies with respect to other claims in an 12 amended complaint. 13 If plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff is informed as follows: 14 1. Generally speaking, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages brought by 15 private individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against states, or state officers acting in their official 16 capacities. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989). 17 2. In order to state a claim for damages, plaintiff must allege facts indicating a causal 18 connection between the actions of a defendant and the injury sustained by plaintiff. See Barren v. 19 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 20 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 21 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 22 3. Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action 23 shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such 24 administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). 25 26 27 28 4. Plaintiff has no constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galazza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 5. Denial or delay of medical care may constitute a violation of a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). A prison official is liable 2 1 under the Eighth Amendment for damages when a prisoner-plaintiff suffers injury resulting from 2 the official’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Id. 3 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 4 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 5 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 6 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 7 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 8 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 9 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.12) is granted. 12 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 13 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 15 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 16 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff does not file an 17 amended complaint within 30 days, this action will proceed on plaintiff’s claim arising under the 18 Eighth Amendment against defendant Bodenhamer and all other defendants and claims will be 19 dismissed. 20 Dated: January 5, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 vale1814.14 _______________________________ 28 3

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?