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)

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