Pelacos v. Muniz et al
Filing
14
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 10 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint; denying 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 12 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ESTABAN PELACOS,
Case No.
16-cv-6666-TEH
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
9
10
MUNIZ, et. al.,
Dkt Nos. 10, 11, 12
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights
14
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
15
proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
16
now before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
17
§ 1915A.
Plaintiff is granted leave to
His complaint is
18
I
19
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of
20
cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity
21
or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
22
1915A(a).
23
the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint
24
“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
25
relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a
26
defendant who is immune from such relief.”
27
Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally
28
construed.
28 U.S.C. §
The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss
Id. § 1915A(b).
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010);
1
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
2
1990).
3
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
4
allege two essential elements:
5
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)
6
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under
7
the color of state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
(1) that a right secured by the
II
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his health and safety.
The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but
12
neither does it permit inhumane ones.
13
U.S. 825, 832 (1994).
14
prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject
15
to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.
16
509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993).
17
punishment," the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison
18
officials, who may not, for example, use excessive force against
19
prisoners.
20
Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must
21
provide all prisoners with the basic necessities of life such as
22
food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal
23
safety.
24
County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989);
25
Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982).
26
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
The treatment a prisoner receives in
See Helling v. McKinney,
In its prohibition of "cruel and unusual
See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992).
See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; DeShaney v. Winnebago
The
A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two
27
requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be,
28
objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
2
1
825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298
2
(1991)), and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently
3
culpable state of mind, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297).
4
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates
5
the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
6
punishment.
7
v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other
8
grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136
9
(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin
A determination of "deliberate
indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the
12
defendant's response to that need.
13
Id. at 1059.
A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a
14
prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury
15
or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."
16
existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would
17
find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence
18
of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's
19
daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial
20
pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious"
21
need for medical treatment.
22
Id.
The
Id. at 1059-60.
A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she
23
knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm
24
and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to
25
abate it.
26
prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the
27
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
28
exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
3
Id.
The
If a prison
1
official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then
2
the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how
3
severe the risk.
Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188
4
(9th Cir. 2002).
“A difference of opinion between a prisoner-
5
patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does
6
not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”
7
1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
8
9
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d
Plaintiff alleges that two correctional officers were
deliberately indifferent to his health and safety by not
providing him with a cane and then having him walk down a steep
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
ramp where he fell and was injured.
12
is liable for continuing to have inmates walk down this steep
13
ramp despite the risk of injury.
14
sufficient to proceed.
He also alleges a sergeant
These allegations are
15
Plaintiff also states that upon his return to the prison
16
after being treated at the hospital for an injured back, a doctor
17
told him that his back was fine and a lost toe nail was due to
18
fungus.
19
failed to describe the treatment that should have been provided
20
and how it violated the Eighth Amendment.
21
failed to identify this doctor.
22
with leave to amend.
23
about how his rights were violated and he must identify the
24
doctor.
25
appointment to ascertain the doctor’s name.
26
The doctor prescribed fungus cream.
Plaintiff has
Plaintiff has also
This claim will be dismissed
Plaintiff should provide more information
He may wish to review his medical paperwork from that
Plaintiff has also requested that counsel be appointed to
27
assist him in this action.
28
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an
A district court has the discretion
4
1
indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances.
2
Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
3
requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the
4
merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims
5
pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.
6
See id.
7
viewed together before deciding on a request for counsel under §
8
1915 (e)(1).
9
appointment of counsel are not evident and the request is denied.
Here, exceptional circumstances requiring the
III
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
This
Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be
10
12
See
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as
follows:
13
1.
The motions to file an amended complaint (Docket Nos.
14
10, 12) are GRANTED and the Court has considered those filings.
15
The motion appoint counsel (Docket No. 11) is DENIED.
16
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A
17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all
18
related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to
19
proceed against in this action.
20
how each and every Defendant is alleged to have violated
21
Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights.
22
634.
23
used in this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED
24
COMPLAINT on the first page.
25
file all of his claims in one complaint and not present them
26
piecemeal to the Court in various letters and other documents.
27
Failure to file a proper First Amended Complaint within twenty-
28
eight days of this order will result in this case only proceeding
The pleading must state clearly
See Leer, 844 F.2d at
The pleading must include the caption and civil case number
Plaintiff is advised that he must
5
1
against the two correctional officers and sergeant as described
2
above.
3
2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint
4
will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings.
5
Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint
6
will not be considered by the Court.
7
County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims
8
dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not
9
require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to
See Lacey v. Maricopa
preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not
12
repled.").
13
3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this
14
action.
15
address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice
16
of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in
17
a timely fashion.
18
of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule
19
of Civil Procedure 41(b).
20
21
Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/10/2017
22
________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
23
24
G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.16\Pelacos6666.dwlta.docx
25
26
27
28
6
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?