Johnson v. CTF Soledad State Prison et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/28/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CEDRIC CHESTER JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-05548-MEJ (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. CTF SOLEDAD STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at the Correctional 14 Training Facility at Soledad (CTF), filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 15 complaining of inadequate medical care at that facility. In its December 5, 2016 initial review 16 order, the Court understood plaintiff to be alleging an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 17 claim based on allegations that he fell and injured himself after defendants refused his request for 18 a “vision impaired test.” After determining that the allegations failed to show that defendants 19 were aware that they would be subjecting plaintiff to an excessive risk to his health, the Court 20 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint. On 21 March 29, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to correct the deficiencies 22 identified in the original complaint. 23 On April 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration clarifying that his 24 complaints alleged that defendants refused to give him a “vision impaired vest,” not a “vision 25 impaired test.” On May 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and reopened 26 the action. On June 22, 2017 the Court re-reviewed the amended complaint and dismissed it with 27 further leave to amend to show how each defendant involved treated him in a way that was 28 medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was undertaken in conscious disregard of an 1 excessive risk of plaintiff’s health. Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint (SAC), which 2 is now before the Court for review.1 DISCUSSION 3 4 A. Standard of Review 5 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 6 seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental 7 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 8 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 9 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 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 the 12 13 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 14 necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 15 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 16 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 17 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 18 do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 19 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 20 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 21 22 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 23 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 24 42, 48 (1988). 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. 1 at 4. With his SAC, plaintiff filed a form declining such jurisdiction. Dkt. 13 at 4. A party must show “extraordinary circumstances” for withdrawing consent. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). Plaintiff did not provide any reason for withdrawing his consent, let alone show extraordinary circumstances. 1 B. Legal Claims The SAC fails to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s orders of dismissal with 2 leave to amend. The SAC is substantially similar to the first amended complaint, and plaintiff has 4 failed to provide additional information. Most significantly, plaintiff fails to state clearly what 5 happened, when it happened, what each defendant did, and how those actions or inactions rise to 6 the level of a federal constitutional violation. As a result, he fails to allege that any defendant 7 acted with the requisite mental state of deliberate indifference to a risk to plaintiff’s health, as 8 required to state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 9 (1994). As with the first amended complaint, plaintiff’s SAC provides a summary of his inmate 10 appeals from 2016 and attaches his appeal record as exhibits. Plaintiff was previously cautioned 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 3 that the Court will not read through exhibits to piece together a claim for a plaintiff who has not 12 pled one. Even in reviewing the attachments provided, however, the Court cannot make out a 13 cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED because the SAC fails to state a cognizable claim 14 15 for relief. Further leave to amend will not be granted because the Court already has explained to 16 plaintiff the specific deficiencies in his pleading, and he has been unable or unwilling to correct 17 them. 18 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 28, 2017 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge

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?