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)

Download PDF
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?