Stevenson v. San Francisco County Jail Medical Services

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/30/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHARLES STEVENSON, 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 No. C 12-2497 SI (pr) Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL SERVICES; et al., Defendants. / 14 INTRODUCTION 15 16 17 18 Charles Stevenson, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 19 BACKGROUND 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stevenson alleges in his complaint that his cane was taken from him and, since then, he has fallen twice in jail. He also alleges that the medications he is taking are "abrasive to [his] organs," Complaint, p. 3, and wants those medications to be changed. Finally, he contends that he did not receive a response to a medical request slip he wrote on April 15, 2012 about blood in his stool and back pain. DISCUSSION 1 2 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 3 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 4 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss 5 any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 6 or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). 7 Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 8 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 11 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 12 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s 14 proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).1 15 A serious medical need exists when failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further 16 significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 17 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on other 18 grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 19 A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of 20 serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. 21 Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from 22 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must 23 also draw the inference.” Id. 24 25 1 26 27 28 It is unclear from the complaint whether Stevenson was a pretrial detainee or a convict at the relevant times. His status affects the constitutional provision under which his claims arise: a pretrial detainee's claims about conditions of confinement arise under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, while a convict's claims arise under the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. 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). 2 1 The complaint is lacking in necessary detail as to the several claims asserted. The lack 2 of detail prevents the court from determining which claims deserve a response and from whom, 3 and also would prevent individual defendants from framing a response to the complaint. 4 Stevenson must file an amended complaint to correct the following deficiencies. First, Stevenson must allege facts suggestive of deliberate indifference to serious medical 6 needs. It is not enough to merely identify the medical needs – a plaintiff also must allege 7 deliberate indifference to those needs by a defendant in order for a constitutional violation to be 8 alleged. For each alleged inadequate response to his medical needs, Stevenson should in his 9 amended complaint (a) describe the medical need, (b) identify the date(s) on which the medical 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 treatment was refused, (c) identify who refused to provide medical treatment, (d) describe how 11 he alerted that person to his need for medical treatment, and (e) state how the refusal to provide 12 medical treatment affected him. With regard to his cane, he must allege who took the cane away 13 from him, and allege that the person did so with deliberate indifference to Stevenson's need for 14 a cane. 15 Second, Stevenson must link defendants to his claim(s). As to every individual defendant 16 he seeks to hold liable, Stevenson must name him/her in his amended complaint and must allege 17 his claim(s) against him/her. In his amended complaint, he should describe what each defendant 18 did (or failed to do) that caused a violation of his constitutional rights so that each proposed 19 defendant has fair notice of his allegedly wrongful conduct. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 20 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (liability under § 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation 21 by a defendant). There is no respondeat superior liability in a § 1983 action, i.e., no liability just 22 because one employs the alleged wrongdoer. Defendant "Jail Medical Services" has no liability 23 merely for employing an alleged wrongdoer because that would be impermissible respondeat 24 superior liability. 25 Third, for each of his claims, Stevenson must allege whether he was a pretrial detainee 26 or a convict at the time of the events in question. As explained in footnote 1, Stevenson's status 27 matters because claims about medical care arise under the Eighth Amendment for convicts and 28 under the Fourteenth Amendment for pretrial detainees. 3 CONCLUSION 1 2 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The amended 3 complaint must be filed no later than October 5, 2012, and must include the caption and civil 4 case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 5 Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his claims and 6 will supersede existing pleadings. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th 7 Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are 8 not alleged in the amended complaint.") Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline 9 will result in the dismissal of the action. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2012 _______________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?