Martinez v. Chappell
Filing
5
ORDER RECLASSIFYING CASE AND DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 2/18/2013. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/11/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
SANTIAGO MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff,
8
vs.
9
ORDER RECLASSIFYING
CASE AND DISMISSING
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
KEVIN R. CHAPPELL,
Defendant.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-6164 PJH (PR)
/
12
13
This case was opened when Martinez filed a habeas petition with the court pursuant
14
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, a review of the petition indicates that plaintiff is raising
15
claims regarding prison conditions, therefore the clerk shall reclassify the case on the
16
docket as a civil rights case, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed
17
in forma pauperis in a separate order.
18
19
20
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
21
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
23
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
24
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
25
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
26
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
27
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
1
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
2
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
3
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
4
allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'
5
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
6
cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
7
above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
8
(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
9
plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained
the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are
12
well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
13
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
14
1937, 1950 (2009).
15
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
16
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
17
violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
18
color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
19
B.
Legal Claims
20
Plaintiff alleges that seizure medication has been denied to him which is causing
21
back-locks, insomnia and depression. Plaintiff provides no specific details regarding his
22
medical condition that requires this medication or even the type of medication at issue.
23
Plaintiff has also failed to identify any specific defendants who have denied him the
24
medication.
25
Medical claims like the one presented by plaintiff are actionable under section 1983
26
only if plaintiff is able to allege facts plausibly asserting that he was the victim of deliberate
27
indifference to a serious medical need, a violation of the Eighth Amendment's proscription
28
against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);
2
1
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX
2
Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The complaint
3
will be dismissed with leave to amend, for plaintiff to identify specific defendants and
4
describe how they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in more detail.
5
CONCLUSION
6
7
1. The clerk shall reclassify this case as a civil rights case brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed no later than February
10
18, 2013, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the
11
For the Northern District of California
2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the
9
United States District Court
8
words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint
12
completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he
13
wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may
14
not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within
15
the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.
16
3. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
17
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
18
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.
19
Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to
20
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
23
24
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.12\Martinez6164.dwlta.wpd
25
26
27
28
3
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?