Hernandez v. Santa Clara Valley Health Care et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/30/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2011)

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

PAUL HERNANDEZ, JR.,

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

No. C 11-2740 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

17
INTRODUCTION
18
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail proceeding pro se, filed this
19
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in
20
forma pauperis in a separate order. The Court now reviews the complaint and dismisses
21
with leave to amend.
22
DISCUSSION
23
I.

Standard of Review

24
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
25
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
26
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss any portion
27
of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
28

1

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

2

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

3

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

4
5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

II.

22

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that he sprained his ankle while in the Santa Clara County Jail,

23

and requested medical care. His appointment with a doctor was scheduled for

24

approximately one month later, but it was cancelled. About one month after that, he fell

25

again because of his weak ankle. His appointment with a bone specialist was delayed for

26

another month. When he eventually saw the bone specialist, approximately three months

27

after the sprain, the specialist told him that he had a separated Achilles tendon, that he

28

should have received surgery at the time of the injury, that it was too late to perform the

1

surgery, and that he is now permanently disabled. When liberally construed, these

2

allegations state a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in

3

violation of the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

4

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).

5

However, the only defendants named by Plaintiff are the “Santa Clara Valley

6

Health and Hospital System Adult Custody Health Care” and the Santa Clara County

7

Department of Corrections. It is unclear whether these are discrete entities separate from

8

Santa Clara County itself. Either way, as they are local government entities, Plaintiff

9

must show: (1) that he possessed a constitutional right of which he was deprived; (2) that

10

the local government entities had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate

11

indifference to his constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind

12

the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130

13

F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff has not alleged that the Defendants had a policy

14

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

15

moving force behind his failure to receive adequate medical treatment. Consequently,

16

the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief against

17

the named defendants. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint in

18

which he makes the allegations necessary to establish Defendants’ liability under

19

Plumeau. Alternatively, in the amended complaint Plaintiff may name individual

20

defendants, but only if he also alleges actions or omissions by them that proximately

21

caused Plaintiff to go without the medical treatment he needed.

22

CONCLUSION

23

1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall

24

file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies described above within thirty

25

(30) days from the date this order is filed. The amendment must include the caption and

26

civil case number used in this order (Case No. C 11-2740 JSW (PR)) and the words

27

“COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an

28

amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

1

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the

2

original or amended complaints by reference. Failure to amend within the designated

3

time and in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

4

2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

5

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

6

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal

7

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 30, 2011

10
11
12
13
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 June 30, 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
701 S. Abel Street
#T05919
CD2-059 #10065691
Milpitas, CA 95035

21

Dated: June 30, 2011

18
19

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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