Howard v. San Quentin State Prison

Filing 11

ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL ORDER OF MAY 3, 2011; OF DISMISSAL; INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 56/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ROLAND E. HOWARD,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON
HEALTH CARE SERVICES; DR.
TOOTELL;

12
13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-0999 JSW (PR)
ORDER VACATING
DISMISSAL ORDER AND
JUDGMENT OF MAY 3, 2011;
OF DISMISSAL;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION
This case was opened when, on March 3, 2011, the Court received three letters
from Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California. Although the Clerk filed one of the
letters as a “Complaint,” it is not a complaint. The letters set forth narratives about
inadequate medical care and interference with mail, but they do not name any
defendants, states any causes of action, or specifies the relief being sought.
Consequently, on March 24, 2011, the Clerk notified Plaintiff that he must file either a
complaint or an or a petition within thirty days or the case would be dismissed and the
file closed. On April 27, 2011, the Clerk received from Plaintiff a form civil rights
complaint, which was entered on the docket on May 3, 2011. Also on May 3, the Court
dismissed this case without prejudice for failing to file a complaint because the Court
was not aware that he had filed a complaint. As Plaintiff had in fact filed a complaint,
however, the action should not have been dismissed on those grounds. Accordingly, the
order of dismissal and judgment of May 3, 2011 are VACATED, and the case is

1

REOPENED for purposes of a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
After reviewing the complaint, the Court now dismisses it for failure to state a

2
3

cognizable claim for relief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

4
5

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

6

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

7

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

8

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

9

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

10

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

11

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

12

1990).

13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

14

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

15

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

16

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

17

(2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need

18

detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

19

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

20

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

21

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

22

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer

23

"enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se

24

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,

25

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

26

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1)

27

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

28

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.
2

1

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
ANALYSIS

2
3

Petitioner alleges that he arrived at San Quentin State Prison on April 14, 2010,

4

and he did not receive his medication until seven days later. Plaintiff does not identify

5

the medication in his complaint, but only describes it as medication for “pain” and for

6

“chronic care.” However, the administrative appeals attached to the complaint identify

7

the medication as methadone. Plaintiff alleges that as a consequence of not receiving the

8

medication he fainted and hit his head, and that on June 2, 2010, Defendant Dr. Tootell

9

examined him, informed him that he had brain damage and ordered an M.R.I. test. She

10

also told plaintiff that she did not know why he had not received the medication when he

11

first arrived at San Quentin.

12

Plaintiff names two defendants, San Quentin State Prison Health Services and

13

Dr. Tootell. The Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s suit against San Quentin. See. ;

14

Allison v. Cal. Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (11th Amendment bars

15

suits against San Quentin State Prison). As for Defendant Dr. Tootell, Plaintiff’s

16

allegations make clear that she did not cause the alleged failure to provide him

17

medication. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. §

18

1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a

19

federally protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). At the

20

pleading stage, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an

21

individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights." Barren v.

22

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff’s allegations indicate that Dr.

23

Tootell did not become involved in his care until June 2, 2010, approximately six weeks

24

after he was already receiving medication. Her only alleged actions were that she

25

examined him for his head injury, opine that he might have brain damage, order an

26

M.R.I., and inform him that she did not know why he had been deprived of his

27

medication six weeks earlier. Even if the deprivation of his medication for seven days

28

amounted to a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment, see Estelle v. Gamble,
3

1

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the

2

Eighth Amendment), it is clear from Plaintiff’s allegations that Dr. Tootell was not

3

involved in such a deprivation and certainly did not proximately cause it.

4

Consequently, plaintiff has not stated cognizable claims against either Defendant.

5

Leave to amend is not warranted because it is clear from the allegations in the complaint

6

establish that the claims are not cognizable against the Defendants, and as a result any

7

amendment would be futile.
CONCLUSION

8
9

For the foregoing reasons, the dismissal order and judgment of May 3, 2011, are

10

VACATED. The case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

11

The Clerk shall enter a new judgment and close the file.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: May 6, 2011

15
16
17

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

IN RE: ROLAND E HOWARD,

7
8
9
10

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
IN RE: ROLAND E HOWARD et al,
Defendant.

11
12

Case Number: CV11-00999 JSW

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on May 6, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Roland E. Howard
#AC8869
San Quentin State Prison
Marin, CA 94974
Dated: May 6, 2011
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk