(PC) Dresdner v. Sacramento County Jail et al
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 02/6/24 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP, DISMISSING 1 Complaint, and DIRECTING the plaintiff to complete the Notice of Amendment, within 30 days from the date of this order. (Licea Chavez, V)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHERYL D. DRESDNER,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
No. 2:23-cv-2038 KJN P
ORDER
SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL AND
SHERIFFS,
Defendants.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and alleges wrongful death of an unidentified inmate while
18
incarcerated in the Sacramento County Main Jail. Plaintiff seeks relief under the Eighth
19
Amendment based on federal question jurisdiction and requested leave to proceed in forma
20
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule
21
302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
22
23
24
Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the
25
required inquiry. The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in
26
forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th
27
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to
28
prisoners.”); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Pursuant to
1
1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in forma
2
pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the
3
action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
4
monetary relief against an immune defendant. See also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 (“It is also
5
clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma
6
pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”).
7
Initially, plaintiff’s pleading is deficient in that plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating she
8
is authorized to act on the decedent’s behalf; indeed, she fails to identify the name of the deceased
9
inmate or her relationship with the decedent. Under § 1983, a claim that accrues before an
10
individual’s death is only cognizable if state law would allow the claim to go forward as a
11
survival action. Tatum v. City County of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1093 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Thus, it
12
is not clear plaintiff may bring this action on behalf of decedent.
Also, even if plaintiff may pursue an action on behalf of decedent, she cannot proceed
13
14
with this action until at least one viable defendant is named. Here, plaintiff names only the
15
Sacramento County Jail and Sheriffs. But plaintiff includes no charging allegations as to such
16
defendants. Thus, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed so that proper defendants may be
17
named.
In addition, it is unclear if plaintiff’s putative claims are appropriately governed by the
18
19
Eighth Amendment as pled.
A pretrial detainee’s rights arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
20
21
whereas a convicted prisoner’s rights arise under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual
22
Punishments Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979) (“[U]nder the Due Process
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
“A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 survives the decedent if the claim accrued before the
decedent’s death, and if state law authorizes a survival action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a);
Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998). Under California
law, if an injury giving rise to liability occurs before a decedent’s death, then the claim survives
to the decedent’s estate. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 377.30. Where there is no personal
representative for the estate, the decedent’s “successor in interest” may prosecute the survival
action if the person purporting to act as successor in interest satisfies the requirements of
California law, which Tatum did here. See Cal. Civ. P. Code §§ 377.30, 377.32.” Tatum, 441
F.3d at 1094 n.2.
2
1
Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance with due
2
process of law.”); Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[M]edical
3
care claims brought by pretrial detainees also ‘arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
4
Process Clause, rather than under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment
5
Clause’” (quoting Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2016))); see
6
also Castro, 833 F.3d at 1067-68 (“Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in
7
custody may do so under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if
8
not yet convicted, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”).
9
Thus, if the decedent was held in the county jail as a pretrial detainee, the Fourteenth
10
Amendment would govern. See, e.g., Anderson v. County of Fresno, No. 1:21-cv-1134 ADA
11
SAB, 2023 WL 2761168 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2023) (raising Fourteenth Amendment claims
12
resulting from death of jail inmate). If the decedent had been convicted, then the Eighth
13
Amendment would govern. Castro, 833 F.3d at 1067-68.
14
Finally, plaintiff’s general claim of “wrongful death” is conclusory and devoid of specific
15
facts for the court to determine whether the pleading states a cognizable claim. Plaintiff also fails
16
to tie individual defendants to the alleged acts or omissions that purportedly caused the death.
17
The facts and circumstances surrounding the decedent’s death are necessary to evaluate plaintiff’s
18
claim. For example, if the death was related to medical care in the jail, factual allegations should
19
address the elements of a putative medical care claim under the due process clause of the
20
Fourteenth Amendment:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the
conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those
conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious
harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures
to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the
circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct
obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused
the plaintiff’s injuries. With respect to the third element, the
defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable, a test that will
necessarily turn[ ] on the facts and circumstances of each particular
case.
Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125. Plaintiff does not include any California state law claims in her
3
1
complaint, but she is cautioned that if she intends to pursue such state law claims, she is required
2
to comply with the claim-presentment requirement of the California Tort Claims Act (“CTCA”),
3
Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.4 et seq.
4
Leave to Amend
5
The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is
6
unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The
7
court determines that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by
8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint
9
must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty.
10
Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some
11
degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id.
12
Because plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint
13
must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
14
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions
15
about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See e.g.,
16
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how
17
each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no
18
liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a
19
defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633
20
F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague, and conclusory allegations of official
21
participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
22
268 (9th Cir. 1982).
23
In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
24
make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
25
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists
26
because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez
27
v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint
28
supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation
4
1
omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any
2
function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim
3
and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
4
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
6
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.
7
3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached
8
Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:
9
a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and
10
b. An original of the Amended Complaint.
11
Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the
12
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must
13
also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”
14
15
16
Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the
dismissal of this action.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights
17
complaint by a nonprisoner.
18
Dated: February 6, 2024
19
20
21
22
/dres2038.14n
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHERYL D. DRESDNER,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
17
18
19
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL AND
SHERIFFS,
15
16
No. 2:23-cv-2038 KJN P
Defendants.
Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order
filed______________.
DATED:
_____________
Amended Complaint
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________
Plaintiff
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?