Hayes v. Alameda County Sheriff Department et al

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND: Amended Complaint due by 7/14/2014.. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 6/16/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 ARAGE BENJAMIN HAYES, Case No.: C 14-2408 JSC (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERRIFF’s DEPARTMENT; CORIZON HEALTH CARE; TRINITY SERVICES GROUP; et al., 18 Defendant. 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Rita County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights complaint 22 23 24 under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against the Alameda County Sherriff’s Department, officials working at the jail, and two private companies that provide medical care for jail inmates. 1 Plaintiff’s 25 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons 26 explained below, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 27 28 1 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 4.) 1 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or 5 any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim 6 7 8 9 upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 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 of 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 14 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a 15 plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than 16 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 17 do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 18 level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). 19 A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” 20 Id. at 1974. Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 21 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 22 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 23 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 24 that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West 25 26 27 28 v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). LEGAL CLAIMS Plaintiff alleges that he can no longer purchase bar soap in the jail canteen, and that he was denied dental and medical care for a “hole” in his tooth and an abscess on the back of his 2 1 head. The named defendants are the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, three different 2 employees of the Sheriff’s Department working at the jail, and two different health and dental 3 care companies. 4 Plaintiff does not allege how any of the Defendants were involved in the violation of 5 his rights. Liability may be imposed on a defendant under Section 1983 only if the plaintiff 6 can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. 7 Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 8 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show 9 that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights."). Plaintiff Northern District of California does not allege what any of the defendants did or failed to do, let alone how they stopped him 11 United States District Court 10 from buying soap or denied him medical or dental care. In fact, he alleges no conduct 12 whatsoever by any named defendant. To state a cognizable claim for relief, Plaintiff must 13 allege facts describing how each defendant was involved in, and caused, the alleged violations 14 of his rights. 15 Furthermore, while there are some alleged facts about the lack of soap in the canteen, 16 Plaintiff makes only a conclusory allegation that his medical and dental care was inadequate. 17 Plaintiff does not allege any facts that show how he was deprived of necessary dental and 18 medical care, or that the denial of such care amounted to deliberate indifference. See Estelle 19 v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 20 the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment). For example, he 21 does not allege when or what care he was provided, how such care was ineffectual, what 22 efforts he made to obtain such care, who was involved in his care or lack thereof, or the 23 problems he suffers as a result of his condition. Under Twombly, Plaintiff must allege facts 24 that make it plausible that his medical and dental care violated his Eighth Amendment rights. 25 Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint that cures the above defects 26 in the complaint. 27 28 CONCLUSION 3 1 This case is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 2 Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within twenty eight (28) days from the date used in this order (No. C 14-2048 (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 6 replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), 7 Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by reference. Failure to amend within 8 the designated time and in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 9 It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 10 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 11 Northern District of California this order is filed. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 4 United States District Court 3 Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 12 Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: June 16, 2014 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?