Bolden v. Howlin et al
Filing
4
ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Nandor Vadas on 03/09/2015. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2015)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
EUREKA DIVISION
6
7
VANCE LAVELL BOLDEN,
No. C 15-0986 NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,
8
J. HOWLIN, et. al.,
Defendants.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
v.
9
/
12
13
14
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)
15
16
17
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
1
allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'
2
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
3
cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
4
above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
5
(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
6
plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained
7
the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the
8
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
9
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
12
13
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
14
violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
15
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
16
B.
Legal Claims
17
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied proper mental health care.
18
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's
19
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
20
(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other
21
grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
22
A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the
23
seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to
24
that need. Id. at 1059.
25
A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could
26
result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The
27
existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of
28
2
1
comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an
2
individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of
3
indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.
4
A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a
5
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps
6
to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only
7
“be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
8
harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have
9
been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth
Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison
12
medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v.
13
Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
14
Plaintiff names as defendants CDCR mental health officials. Plaintiff claims that
15
defendants have denied him relief, which has adversely affected his mental health, causing
16
severe anxiety and hallucinations. This is a result of him anticipating having a cell mate.
17
However, plaintiff fails to describe the mental health care that was denied or the specific
18
actions of any individual defendant. For relief plaintiff seeks an injunction for a permanent
19
single cell. The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must describe
20
the mental health care that was denied and identify specific defendants and describe how
21
they violated his constitutional rights. Simply attaching exhibits is insufficient.
22
CONCLUSION
23
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the
24
standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)
25
days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used
26
in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an
27
amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all
28
3
1
the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.
2
1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to
3
amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action.
4
2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
5
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
6
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.
7
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2015.
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
EUREKA DIVISION
4
5
VANCE LAVELL BOLDEN,
No. 1:15-CV-0986 NJV
6
Plaintiff,
v.
J. HOWLIN, et al.,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7
8
Defendants.
___________________________________/
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on March 9, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy
of the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed
below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.
12
13
14
15
Vance Lavell Bolden
T-18891
C.T.F. Central
B-Wing, 305 Low
P.O. 689
Soledad, CA 93960-0689
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
____________________________________
Linn Van Meter
Administrative Law Clerk to
the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?