Garza v. Garcia et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 10/25/2013. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/16/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2013)

1

*E-Filed 9/16/13*

2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

7
8

ROLANDO GARZA,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

A.J. GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.
/

13
14

INTRODUCTION

15

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state
prisoner. The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

17
18
19

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

12

16

No. C 13-1880 (PR)

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

20

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

21

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

22

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

23

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

24

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

25

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

26
27

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

28
No. C 13-1880 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

1

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

2

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

3

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

4

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

5

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

6

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

7

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

8

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

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

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

11

B.

12

Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that the negligent actions by correctional officers at High Desert State

13

Prison resulted in his falling and injuring himself. He also alleges that the officers failed to

14

summon medical assistance in a timely manner. Such actions, he contends, violated his

15

rights under the Eighth Amendment.

16

His allegations are insufficient to state claims for relief. The allegations show at worst

17

that defendants were negligent or grossly negligent, neither of which is actionable under §

18

1983. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n.4 (1994); Wood v. Housewright,

19

900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).

20

To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, one must allege facts that show

21

defendants acted with “deliberate indifference.” A determination of “deliberate indifference”

22

involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical needs

23

and the nature of the defendant’s response to those needs. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

24

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller,

25

104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)).

26

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a

27

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to

28
No. C 13-1880 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

1

abate it. Farmer, 511 U. S. at 837 (equating standard with that of criminal recklessness).

2

The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn

3

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but “must also draw the inference.” Id.

4

Consequently, in order for deliberate indifference to be established, there must exist both a

5

purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and harm resulting therefrom. See

6

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. Plaintiff’s allegations do not meet these standards.

7

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file

8

an amended complaint on or before October 25, 2013. The first amended complaint must

9

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (13-1880 RS (PR)) and the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint

11

completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended

12

complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue,

13

including the excessive force claim found cognizable. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

14

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be deemed

15

waived. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference.

16

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of

17

this action without further notice to plaintiff.

18

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

19

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

20

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask

21

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action

22

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: September 16, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

No. C 13-1880 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3