Stevenson v. San Francisco County Jail Medical Services

Filing 5

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

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