Hernandez v. Santa Clara Valley Health Care et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/8/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SANTA CLARA COUNTY; SANTA
)
CLARA VALLEY HEALTH &
)
HOSPITAL SYSTEM ADULT
)
CUSTODY HEALTH CARE; SANTA
CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )
)
CORRECTIONS,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________ )
PAUL HERNANDEZ, JR.,

No. C 11-2740 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

18

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this

19
20

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint was dismissed with leave to

21

amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that does not cure the deficiencies in the

22

original complaint. The Court now reviews the complaint and dismisses it with leave to

23

amend.

24
25

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

2

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

3

from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

4

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

5
6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

18

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

19

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

20

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

21

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

22

II.

23

Legal Claims
The original complaint was dismissed because the only defendants were the

24

“Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System Adult Custody Health Care” and the

25

Santa Clara County Department of Corrections, and Plaintiff had not allegeda policy that

26

amounted to deliberate indifference to his Eighth Amendment rights and that was the

27

moving force behind his failure to receive adequate medical treatment, as is required to

28

succeed on a claim against a local government entity. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40

1

County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff was given leave to

2

amend to so allege or, alternatively, to name individual defendants whose actions or

3

omissions by them that proximately caused Plaintiff to go without the medical treatment

4

he needed. Plaintiff has done neither. The amended complaint adds the County of Santa

5

Clara as a defendant, but does not allege a policy or that the policy was the moving force

6

behind his inadequate medical care, as required by Plumeau. This case will be dismissed

7

because, as Plaintiff was warned, he did not cure the deficiencies in his original

8

complaint.

9

CONCLUSION

10

In light of the foregoing, this case is DISMISSED.

11

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: September 8, 2011

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

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
PAUL HERNANDEZ JR,

Case Number: CV11-02740 JSW

6
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
v.

8
9

SANTA CLARA VALLEY HEALTH AND
HOSPITAL SYSTEM ADULT CUSTODY
HEALTH CARE et al,

10
Defendant.

11
12
13
14
15

/

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 September 8, 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

20

Paul Hernandez
T-05919
North Kern State Prison
PO Box 4999
Delano, CA 93216

21

Dated: September 8, 2011

18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk