Dyer v. Pearce et al

Filing 27

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 Complaint filed by Jewel E. Dyer, Motions terminated: 17 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Jewel E. Dyer.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/24/18. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JEWEL E. DYER,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
TIMOTHY PEARCE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-02640-JD

12
13

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

14

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended

15

complaint.
DISCUSSION

16
17

STANDARD OF REVIEW

18

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

19

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

20

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

21

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

22

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

23

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

24

Cir. 1990).

25

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

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

27

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

28

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

1

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

2

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

3

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

4

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

5

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

6

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

7

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

8

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by

9

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

12

LEGAL CLAIMS

13

Plaintiff presents many allegations regarding his confinement in Mendocino County Jail.

14

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription

15

against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v.

16

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc.

17

v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of “deliberate

18

indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical

19

need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 1

20

A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in

21

further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of

22

an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

It appears that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. Even though pretrial detainees’ claims arise under
the Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating those
claims. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees
provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). The Ninth Circuit has determined that
the appropriate standard for evaluating constitutional claims brought by pretrial detainees is the
same one used to evaluate convicted prisoners’ claims under the Eighth Amendment. “The
requirement of conduct that amounts to ‘deliberate indifference’ provides an appropriate balance
of the pretrial detainees’ right to not be punished with the deference given to prison officials to
manage the prisons.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (en
banc) (citation omitted).
2

1

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily

2

activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a

3

prisoner has a “serious” need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.

4

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

5

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate

6

it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of

7

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but

8

he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but

9

was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.
Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to

12

a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so under the

13
14

Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the

15

Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979);

16

Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). But under both

17

clauses, the inmate must show that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at

18

1068.

19

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 18(a) provides: “A party asserting a claim to relief as an

20

original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or

21

as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime as the party has against an

22

opposing party.” “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against

23

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith,

24

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in

25

different suits[.]” Id.

26

It is true that Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) provides that “[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action

27

as defendants if: (A) any right is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with

28

respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
3

1

occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the

2

action.” However, “[a] buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person – say, a

3

suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a

4

debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions – should be rejected if filed by a

5

prisoner.” Id. at 607.

6

In the original complaint plaintiff argued that he was receiving inadequate health care and

7

being denied access to the courts. He did not provide sufficient information so the complaint was

8

dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has presented additional information regarding the

9

medical care claim but has also presented unrelated claims against approximately 25 defendants.
Plaintiff argues he was denied access to the courts, guards are calling him names, his incoming

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

mail is being tampered with, his First Amendment rights are being violated, his property has been

12

destroyed, he is receiving inadequate food, inmate grievances are not being processes and other

13

allegations.

14

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff should focus the second

15

amended complaint on a few related incidents and he must identify the specific actions of the

16

defendants and describe how they violated his constitutional rights with respect to the legal

17

standards set forth above. Plaintiff should present a complaint with just a few related claims like

18

his original complaint, but with sufficient allegations in support. Plaintiff may file new actions for

19

the other claims if he wishes, and he will be provided with a blank complaint form. Plaintiff is

20

also reminded that he may only proceed with claims that were fully exhausted in the jail grievance

21

system. Failure to follow the court’s instructions may result in dismissal of this action.

22

Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Ninth Circuit has held that a

23

district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in “exceptional

24

circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of

25

success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of

26

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

27

1991). Plaintiff appears able to present his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex.

28

Therefore, the motion to appoint counsel will be denied.
4

CONCLUSION

1
2

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

3

standards set forth above. The second amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)

4

days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this

5

order and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended

6

complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he

7

wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

8

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

9

designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

2. The Clerk shall SEND plaintiff a blank civil rights form and in forma pauperis
application. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 17) is DENIED.
3. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

13

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

14

Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so

15

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

16

Procedure 41(b).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2018

19
20
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JEWEL E. DYER,

Case No. 17-cv-02640-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

TIMOTHY PEARCE, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on April 24, 2018, 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

Jewel E. Dyer ID: A#20559
M.C.S.O. Corrections Division
951 Low Gap Rd.
Ukiah, CA 95482

19
20
21

Dated: April 24, 2018

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
6