Alford v. MSCC Medical Staff et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 6 Motion to Rename Defendants. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
AARON ROBERT ALFORD,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

CAL REMINGTON; DR. DOUGLAS
SPENCER,

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.17-cv-00460-JSC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
RENAME DEFENDANTS;
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF No. 6)

Defendants.

12

INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Maple Street Correctional Center (“MSCC”) in Redwood City,

14

California, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 against two MSCC

15

employees, Cal Remington and Dr. Douglas Spencer.1 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

16

pauperis is granted in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is

17

dismissed with leave to amend.

18

STANDARD OF REVIEW

19

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

20

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

21

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of

22

the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

23

may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

24

§ 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901

25

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c). (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff’s motion to rename the Defendants listed in the complaint to
Defendants Remington and Spencer is GRANTED. (ECF No. 6.)

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

2

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

3

statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon

4

which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to

5

state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to

6

provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

7

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

8

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

9

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988).
LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that he was given and ordered to take medication meant for someone else,
which made him sick. While deliberate indifference to an inmate’s safety or medical needs is
unconstitutional, Plaintiff does not allege how the two Defendants were involved in causing him to

18
receive the wrong medication. Liability may be imposed on Defendants only if Plaintiff shows
19
actions or omissions by them that actually and proximately caused the deprivation of his federally
20
protected rights. See Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1085
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

(9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff’s failure to specify what actions Remington and Spencer took or failed to
take that led to him receiving the wrong medication, therefore, means that his complaint does not
state a cognizable claim for relief against them. To state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, Plaintiff must allege the actions or omissions of each Defendant that led to the alleged
violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is given the opportunity to make these allegations in
an amended complaint, which he must file in accordance with the instructions below.
Plaintiff has also submitted a letter to the Court alleging inadequate medical care at MSCC

28
2

1

for a condition on his arm. (ECF No. 5.) He states that he intends to add that claim to the

2

complaint in this action. If he wishes to include such a claim in this case, he must include it in the

3

amended complaint.
CONCLUSION

4
5

1.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an amended

6

complaint within twenty eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. The amended

7

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (No. C 17-0460 JSC

8

(PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page.

9

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by
reference; he must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to pursue. Failure to
amend within the designated time and in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal of
this action.
2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court
informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of
Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion, although he
may request an extension of time provided it is accompanied by a showing of good cause and it is
filed on or before the deadline he wants to extend. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of

18
this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
Dated: May 5, 2017
22
23
24

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AARON ROBERT ALFORD,

Case No. 17-cv-00460-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

MSCC MEDICAL STAFF, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

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 May 5, 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.

18
19
20

Aaron Robert Alford ID: #1200334
1300 Maple Street
Redwood City, CA 94063

21
22

Dated: May 5, 2017

23
24
25
26
27

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
By:________________________
Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

28
4