Dyer v. Pearce et al
Filing
10
ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 7/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EUREKA DIVISON
7
8
JEWEL E. DYER,
Case No. 17-cv-2640-NJV (PR)
Plaintiff,
9
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
v.
10
11
TIMOTHY PEARCE, et. al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
Dkt. No. 8
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9.)
DISCUSSION
16
17
Standard of Review
18
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
19
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
20
1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
21
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
22
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se
23
pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
24
Cir. 1990).
25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
26
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
27
statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds
28
upon which it rests.’”” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although
in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's
2
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
3
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .
4
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
5
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must
6
proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United
7
States Supreme Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly:
8
“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by
9
factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
10
veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
12
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
13
States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under
14
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
15
Legal Claims
16
Plaintiff alleges that he is receiving inadequate medical care, the water in the jail is giving
17
him a rash and adversely affecting his health and he is being denied access to the courts.
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 (1976);
20
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX
21
Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of
22
“deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the
23
prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 1
24
1
25
26
27
28
It appears that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. Even though pretrial detainees’ claims arise under
the Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating those
claims. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees
provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). The Ninth Circuit has determined that
the appropriate standard for evaluating constitutional claims brought by pretrial detainees is the
same one used to evaluate convicted prisoners’ claims under the Eighth Amendment. “The
requirement of conduct that amounts to ‘deliberate indifference’ provides an appropriate balance
of the pretrial detainees’ right to not be punished with the deference given to prison officials to
2
1
A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in
2
further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of
3
an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or
4
treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily
5
activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a
6
prisoner has a “serious” need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.
A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a
8
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate
9
it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of
10
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but
12
was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.
13
Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion
14
between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to
15
a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so under the
16
17
Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the
18
Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979);
19
Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). But under both
20
clauses, the inmate must show that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at
21
1068.
22
Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
23
343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To establish a claim for any
24
violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy
25
in the prison’s legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 350-
26
55. To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the inadequacy in the prison's program
27
28
manage the prisons.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (en
banc) (citation omitted).
3
1
hindered his efforts to pursue a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or conditions of
2
confinement. See id. at 354-55.
3
Plaintiff states that he has been refused treatment, however he fails to discuss what
4
treatment was refused and the underlying medical problems. He has also failed to identify the
5
actions of any specific defendants. Similarly, plaintiff states that he was denied access to the
6
courts, but fails to provide any details. Nor has he provided specific allegations regarding how the
7
facility water is harming him and what if any steps he has taken in discussing this with jail
8
officials. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must provide more details
9
and describe who specific individuals violated his constitutional rights. Conclusory allegations
10
with no support are insufficient.
CONCLUSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set
13
forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this
14
order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words
15
AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces
16
the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik
17
v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the
18
original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the
19
dismissal of this case.
20
2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court
21
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
22
Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so
23
may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
24
Procedure 41(b).
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2017
________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
4
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?