Anonuevo v. San Mateo County Medical Staff

Filing 26

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 23 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 8/24/17. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RYAN S. ANONUEVO,

Case No. 16-cv-06898-JCS (PR)

Plaintiff,
8

v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9
10

CAL REMINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

Dkt. No. 23

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil

14
15

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against jailors and medical

16

staff at the San Mateo County Jail. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to

17

amend because plaintiff failed to state any claim for relief. The third amended complaint,

18

the subject of this order, similarly fails to state a claim for relief under federal law.

19

Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff pursuing his claims

20

in state court.
DISCUSSION

21

22

A.

Standard of Review

23

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that

24

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

25

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

27

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

28

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a

1

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

2

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

3

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

4

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

5

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “A plaintiff‟s obligation to provide the „grounds of his

6

entitle[ment] to relief‟ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

7

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . Factual allegations must be

8

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-

9

56 (2007) (citations omitted). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal
conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55

12

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

13
14

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

15

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

16

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

17

B.

Legal Claims

18

1.

Original Complaint

19

Plaintiff alleged in his original complaint that he was informed by a nurse that

20

unnamed medical staff at the Maple Street Correctional Center in San Mateo “mistakenly

21

overdosed” him with an unnamed medication for five days. According to plaintiff, this act

22

of “negligence” injured his kidneys such that he is now a diabetic.

23

The Court rejected these allegations as insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff failed

24

to provide the names of the persons responsible for prescribing his medication, or the name

25

or dosage amount.

26

Plaintiff‟s allegations were rejected also because they stated at most an instance of

27

negligence or gross negligence, neither of which is sufficient to make out a violation of the

28

Eighth Amendment.
2

1

2.

First and Second Amended Complaints

2

The second amended complaint arrived before the Court could review the first

3

amended complaint. The second amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend

4

because plaintiff filed “exhibits,” which appeared to raise claims not listed in the new

5

complaint. Rather than proceeding with such piecemeal litigation, the Court dismissed the

6

second amended complaint with leave to file an amended complaint that would include all

7

claims.

8

3.

Third Amended Complaint

9

The third amended complaint fails to state any claim for relief. As with the original
complaint, plaintiff‟s allegations amount to, at most, a description of negligence on behalf

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of defendants. Neither negligence nor gross negligence is sufficient to state a claim under

12

section 1983. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-36 & n.4 (1994).

13

Plaintiff also fails to adhere to the requirements of Leer, which mandates that the

14

“inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities

15

of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a

16

constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Rather, he

17

says only that unnamed “defendants knew the dosage was wrong” and “they acted

18

purposely and used deliberate indifference.” (Third. Am. Compl. at 3.) This formulaic

19

recitation of the elements of a cause of action unattached to any specific defendant do not

20

meet the pleading requirements of Iqbal.

21

Plaintiff should consider bringing his claims in state court. While allegations of

22

negligence do not state a claim under federal law, they may state a claim under state law.

23

Whether such claims will survive initial review or will ultimately be successful in state

24

court, this Court cannot say. The appropriate state court in which to file such claims is the

25

San Mateo County Superior Court.

26
27
28

CONCLUSION
This federal civil rights action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff filing
his claims in state court, or to moving to reopen this federal suit if plaintiff can allege facts
3

1

that plausibly establish a violation of his federal constitutional rights.

2

Plaintiff‟s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 23) is DENIED for the

3

reasons stated in the Court‟s prior order denying a prior request for counsel (Dkt. No. 22).

4
5
6
7

The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. No. 23, enter judgment in favor of defendants, and
close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 24, 2017
_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

8
9
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
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RYAN S. ANONUEVO,

Case No. 16-cv-06898-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

CAL REMINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on August 24, 2017, 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

Ryan S. Anonuevo ID: #269701
Maple Street Corr. Center
1300 Maple Street
Redwood City, CA 94063

20
21

Dated: August 24, 2017

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

27
28
5