Hoeper v. City & County of San Francisco Department of Public Health Jail Health Services et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/05/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 No. C-11-0683 TEH (PR) LESLIE RICHARD HOEPER, 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF SERVICE v. 13 14 15 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et. al., Defendant(s). / 16 17 Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee at the San Francisco 18 County Jail at 850 Bryant Street in San Francisco, filed this pro se 19 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that San 20 Francisco County Jail medical staffer Romelo Adeo was deliberately 21 indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs while he was jailed 22 at that facility. 23 Plaintiff 160 milligrams of methadone and that as a result, 24 Plaintiff, who claims he never had taken this medication previously, 25 was transferred to San Francisco General Hospital and treated for an 26 overdose. 27 initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 28 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Adeo gave Doc. #1 at 2. The action is now before the Court for 1 I 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 3 cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or 4 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 5 The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, 6 or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, 7 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 8 granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 9 from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Pleadings filed by pro se 10 litigants, however, must be liberally construed. 11 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 12 Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Hebbe v. Pliler, 13 14 II 15 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 16 allege two essential elements: 17 Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 18 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 19 color of state law. 20 (1) that a right secured by the West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 21 the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual 22 punishment.1 23 determination of “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner’s serious Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A 24 25 26 27 28 1 At the time he initiated this action, Plaintiff was awaiting trial in the San Francisco County Jail. As a pretrial detainee, his medical claim arises under the Due Process Clause, but the Eighth Amendment still serves as a benchmark for evaluating the claim. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (Eighth Amendment guarantees provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). 2 1 medical needs involves an examination of two elements: 2 seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the 3 defendant’s response to that need. 4 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 the See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d A “serious medical need” exists if the failure to treat a 6 prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or 7 the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” 8 at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on 9 other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, McGuckin, 974 F.2d 10 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 11 indifferent” if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of 12 serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable 13 steps to abate it. 14 A prison official is “deliberately Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). A pretrial detainee establishes a violation of the right 15 to personal security protected by the Due Process Clause of the 16 Fourteenth Amendment by demonstrating that prison officials acted 17 with deliberate indifference. 18 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 19 with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an 20 excessive risk to prisoner health or safety. 21 837. 22 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 23 exists, and he also must draw the inference. 24 sufficient to impose liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 25 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 26 official’s conduct must have been “wanton,” which turns not upon its 27 effect on the prisoner, but rather, upon the constraints facing the 28 Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 A prison official acts Farmer, 511 U.S. at The official must both be aware of facts from which the 3 Id. Negligence is not Id. at 835; Rather, the 1 official. 2 (1991)). 3 Id. (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations that medical 4 staffer Romelo Adeo was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s 5 serious medical needs appear to state a cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 6 claim and Adeo will be served. 7 Named Defendant “City and County Department of Public 8 Health Jail Services” is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice due to 9 Plaintiff’s failure to allege sufficient facts to show that some 10 official policy or custom caused a constitutional tort, see Monell 11 v. Dep’t. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); see also Board 12 of Cty. Comm’rs. of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); 13 Monell, 436 U.S. at 691; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 14 1534 (9th Cir. 1995) (city or county may not be held vicariously 15 liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the 16 theory of respondeat superior); Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County 17 of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (to impose municipal 18 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of constitutional 19 rights, plaintiff must show: (1) that plaintiff possessed a 20 constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the 21 municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to 22 deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; 23 and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the 24 constitutional violation). 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 4 1 III 2 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 3 1. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States 4 Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of the 5 Complaint in this matter, all attachments thereto, and copies of 6 this Order on San Francisco County Jail (850 Bryant Street, San 7 Francisco) Medical Staffer Romelo Adeo. 8 a copy of this Order on Plaintiff. 9 10 2. The Clerk also shall serve To expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows: 11 a. No later than ninety (90) days from the date of 12 this Order, Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or 13 other dispositive motion. 14 supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all 15 respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as 16 exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from the events 17 at issue. 18 resolved by summary judgment or other dispositive motion, they shall 19 so inform the Court prior to the date their motion is due. 20 papers filed with the Court shall be served promptly on Plaintiff. 21 A motion for summary judgment shall be If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be b. All Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion 22 shall be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later 23 than thirty (30) days after Defendants serve Plaintiff with the 24 motion. 25 c. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary 26 judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, 27 if granted, end your case. 28 Rule 56 tells you what you must do in 5 1 order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. 2 judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material 3 fact - that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that 4 would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for 5 summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which 6 will end your case. 7 summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or 8 other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your 9 complaint says. Generally, summary When a party you are suing makes a motion for Instead, you must set out specific facts in 10 declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or 11 authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradicts 12 the facts shown in the Defendants’ declarations and documents and 13 show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. 14 you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, 15 if appropriate, may be entered against you. 16 granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 17 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) 18 (App. A). 19 If If summary judgment is Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for 20 failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 21 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without prejudice. 22 You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in 23 order to dispute any “factual record” presented by the Defendants in 24 their motion to dismiss. 25 (9th Cir. 2003). 26 27 28 d. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.14 Defendants shall file a reply brief within fifteen (15) days of the date on which Plaintiff serves them with 6 1 the opposition. 2 e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the 3 date the reply brief is due. 4 unless the Court so orders at a later date. 5 3. No hearing will be held on the motion Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal 6 Rules of Civil Procedure. 7 the parties may conduct discovery. 8 9 4. No further Court order is required before All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants, or Defendants’ counsel once counsel has 10 been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to 11 Defendants or Defendants’ counsel. 12 5. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 13 case. 14 change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a 15 timely fashion. 16 this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must keep the Court and all parties informed of any Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 DATED 10/05/2011 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.11\Hoeper-11-0683-order of service.wpd 7

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?