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)

Download PDF
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

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?