Jenkins v. Unknown

Filing 11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/4/16. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ROBERT LEE JENKINS, JR.,

No. C 16-0744 WHA (PR)

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

v.

13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

J. GASTELO, Warden,
Defendant.

14

/

15
16

INTRODUCTION
17
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42
18
U.S.C. 1983. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons
19
discussed below, the case is DISMISSED.
20
ANALYSIS
21
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

22
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
23
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
24
§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
25
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
26
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro
27
se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699
28
(9th Cir. 1990).

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

4

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

5

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

6

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

7

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

8

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

9

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

10

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

11
For the Northern District of California

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

3

United States District Court

2

at 1974.

12

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

13

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

14

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

15

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

16

B.

17

LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that there are delays in the distribution of evening medication to inmates

18

at his prison due to overcrowding. He claims that this violates the rulings in a pending class

19

action, Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. 1995), which was consolidated with

20

class action case, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 01-01351 TEH (N.D. Cal. filed 2001), and

21

which involves the provision of medical care to prisoners in California. Plaintiff seeks an order

22

on behalf of himself and all other inmates at his prison directing prison officials to relieve

23

overcrowding at his prison and to hire back enough nurses to ensure more rapid distribution of

24

medication prison-wide.

25

An individual suit for injunctive and equitable relief from allegedly unconstitutional

26

prison conditions may be dismissed when it duplicates an existing class action's allegations and

27

prayer for relief. See Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). The Plata class

28

action does not bar individual inmates' claims for personal medical care because Plata had
2

1

sought systemic reform of medical care in California prisons, had determined that overcrowding

2

was the primary cause of the systemic constitutional violations, and the Plata court concluded

3

that only a reduction in prisoner population would remedy the constitutional violations. Id. at

4

1137. "[W]here a California prisoner brings an independent claim for injunctive relief solely on

5

his own behalf for specific medical treatment denied to him, Plata does not bar the prisoner's

6

claim for injunctive relief." Id. at 1133.

7

Here, plaintiff brings a claim for injunctive relief, not solely on his own behalf, but on

by Plata, an individual inmate's suit requesting an injunction for treatment of his shoulder and

10

knee problems). He seeks an injunction for systemic reform of the medication distribution at

11
For the Northern District of California

behalf of all the inmates in his prison. Compare id. (district court erred in dismissing, as barred

9

United States District Court

8

his prison, relief from overcrowding and the hiring of additional medical personnel. As such,

12

and as plaintiff states, his claim and the relief he seeks fall squarely within the purview of

13

Coleman/Plata. Therefore, he may not bring it as an individual suit, but must instead seek to

14

remedy the claimed violation through class counsel in the Coleman/Plata case.

15
16
17
18

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, this action is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file
and enter judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated: May

4

, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3