Williams v. Muniz et al

Filing 17

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 16 Amended Complaint filed by Winston Williams Second Amended Complaint due by 6/8/2017.. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 5/11/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WINSTON WILLIAMS,

Case No.

17-cv-0098-TEH

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

9
10

WILLIAM MUNIZ, et. al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed

14

this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and

16

Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

The

17

I

18

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of

19

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity

20

or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

21

1915A(a).

22

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

23

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

24

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

25

defendant who is immune from such relief.”

26

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally

27

construed.

28

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

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

1990).

2

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

3

allege two essential elements:

4

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

5

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under

6

the color of state law.

(1) that a right secured by the

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

7

II

8

Plaintiff states that he has received inadequate medical

9
10

care.
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual

12

punishment.

13

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

14

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

15

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

16

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the

17

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the

18

defendant's response to that need.

19

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin

A determination of "deliberate

Id. at 1059.

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a

20

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury

21

or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."

22

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would

23

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence

24

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's

25

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial

26

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious"

27

need for medical treatment.

Id. at 1059-60.

28
2

Id.

The

1

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she

2

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm

3

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to

4

abate it.

5

prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the

6

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

7

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.”

8

official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then

9

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Id.

The

If a prison

severe the risk.

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

(9th Cir. 2002).

“A difference of opinion between a prisoner-

12

patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does

13

not give rise to a § 1983 claim.”

14

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

15

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d

Plaintiff states that Defendants failed to provide adequate

16

treatment for his serious medical needs.

17

and injunctive relief.

18

constant pain regarding his shoulder; however, he provides no

19

more information.

20

medical problem, nor does he describe the treatment that is

21

needed which has been denied.

22

medical care on February 14, 2016, but he fails to describe the

23

care that was denied.

24

Plaintiff must provide more information concerning the relief he

25

seeks.

26

has failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support

27

the claim.

28

deficiencies, and he was informed that he needed to provide more

He seeks money damages

Plaintiff states that he suffers from

It is not clear the nature of his injury or

Plaintiff states he was denied

In order to obtain injunctive relief,

While he has set forth the basic elements of the claim he

Plaintiff’s original complaint contained the same

3

1

information in an amended complaint.

2

complaint is substantially similar to the original complaint and

3

Plaintiff has failed to provide additional information.

4

Unfortunately, the amended

A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to

5

relief that is plausible on its face.”

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

7

Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of

8

Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a

9

complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

The United States Supreme

When

there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give

12

rise to an entitlement to relief.”

13

662, 679 (2009).

14

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

The amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to

15

provide more information.

16

problems with his shoulder and the specific actions of each

17

Defendant that violated his constitutional rights.

18

should describe what specific medical care was denied and how it

19

violated his constitutional rights.

20

III

21
22

Plaintiff should describe the medical

Plaintiff

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as
follows:

23

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH

24

LEAVE TO FILE A Second AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight

25

days containing all related claims against all Defendants that

26

Plaintiff wishes to proceed against in this action.

27

must be simple, concise and direct and must state clearly and

28

succinctly how each and every Defendant is alleged to have
4

The pleading

1

violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights.

2

F.2d at 634.

3

case number used in this order and the words COURT ORDERED Second

4

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page.

5

he must file all of his claims in one complaint and not present

6

them piecemeal to the Court in various letters and other

7

documents.

8

within twenty-eight days of this order will result in the

9

dismissal of this case.

10

See Leer, 844

The pleading must include the caption and civil

Plaintiff is advised that

Failure to file a proper Second Amended Complaint

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings.

12

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint

13

will not be considered by the Court.

14

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims

15

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not

16

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to

17

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily

18

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not

19

repled.").

20

See Lacey v. Maricopa

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this

21

action.

22

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice

23

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in

24

a timely fashion.

Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal

25
26
27
28
5

1

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule

2

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/11/2017

5

________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

6
7

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.17\Williams0098.dwlta2.docx

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
6