Hernandez v. San Mateo County Jail

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 Complaint filed by Anthony S, Hernandez. Signed by Judge jam on 5/23/16. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANTHONY S. HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
SAN MATEO COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01680-JD

12
13
14

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION

15
16

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

18

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

20

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

22

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

23

Cir. 1990).

24

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

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

26

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

27

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

28

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

1

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

2

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

4

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

5

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

6

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

7

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by

8
9
10

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

LEGAL CLAIMS

12

Plaintiff states that he received inadequate medical care while at San Mateo County Jail.

13

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription

14

against cruel and unusual punishment.1 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v.

15

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc.

16

v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of “deliberate

17

indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical

18

need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059.

19

A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

20

further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of

21

an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

22

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

It is not clear if plaintiff is a pretrial detainee or a convicted prisoner. 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)
(8th Amendment guarantees provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). The Ninth
Circuit has determined that the appropriate standard for evaluating constitutional claims brought
by pretrial detainees is the same one used to evaluate convicted prisoners’ claims under the Eighth
Amendment. “The requirement of conduct that amounts to ‘deliberate indifference’ provides an
appropriate balance of the pretrial detainees’ right to not be punished with the deference given to
prison officials to manage the prisons.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443
(9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted).
2

1

activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a

2

prisoner has a “serious”need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.

3

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

4

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

5

it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of

6

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but

7

he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but

8

was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.

9

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion
between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

12

Plaintiff states that medical staff failed to provide him with his medications and physical

13

support implements. He states that he is disabled and has been suffering due to the lack of proper

14

medical care. Yet, plaintiff has not identified any specific individual nor has he described his

15

medical problems and what medications and physical support implements were denied. The

16

complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must provide more details regarding his

17

medical condition and how the denial of the medications and support implements was deliberately

18

indifferent to his serious medical needs. He must also identify the specific actions of each

19

defendant and describe how they violated his constitutional rights.
CONCLUSION

20
21

1.

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must

22

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption

23

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

24

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

25

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

26

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

27

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

28
3

1

2.

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

2

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

3

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

4

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

5

Civil Procedure 41(b).

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2016

8
9
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANTHONY S, HERNANDEZ,

Case No. 16-cv-01680-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

SAN MATEO COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on May 23, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Anthony S, Hernandez
#1019702
San Mateo County Jail
300 Bradford Street
Redwood City, CA 94063

20
21

Dated: May 23, 2016

22
23
24

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
5