Whitaker v. Saleem et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 3/18/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

WHITAKER,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DR. M. SALEEM, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-0113 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerate at Salinas Valley State Prison, has
13
filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His original complaint was
14
dismissed with leave to amend and he has filed an amended complaint.
15
DISCUSSION
16
A.

Standard of Review

17
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
18
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
19
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
20
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
21
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
22
1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
23
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of
25
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;
26
the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
27
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
28
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

6

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

7

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

8

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

9

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1937, 1950 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

12
13

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

14

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

15

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

B.

Legal Claims
In his original complaint, plaintiff stated that defendant Ford denied him food,

17
18

because he would not talk to him and took his yard and canteen privileges. Plaintiff next

19

alleged that defendant Dr. Saleem gave false testimony in a Keyhea1 hearing, by falsely

20

stating that plaintiff had threatened staff. As a result, plaintiff was involuntarily administered

21

psychotropic medication. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend to provide

22

additional information, unfortunately the amended complaint mostly repeats the allegations

23

of the original complaint.

24

///

25
1

26
27
28

In Keyhea v. Rushen, 178 Cal.App.3d 526 (1986), the state appellate court “upheld
a consent decree affirming the right of state prisoners to refuse antipsychotic medications
except under certain limited circumstances.” In re Qawi, 32 Cal.4th 1, 21 (2004). Under
California law, the Keyhea procedures govern the involuntary administration of antipsychotic
medications.
2

1

Plaintiff states a defendant denied him food, though plaintiff fails to describe if this

2

was one meal or a recurring problem. Plaintiff also states that his classification status was

3

changed and he was denied yard and canteen privileges. However, a prisoner does not

4

have a constitutional right to a particular classification status. Hernandez v. Johnston, 833

5

F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976).

6

Plaintiff includes a transcript of the Keyhea hearing (Docket No. 6), where he was

ultimately found based on the totality of the evidence that plaintiff was a danger to others

9

and needed to be medicated. To the extent plaintiff is asserting a due process violation, he

10

has failed to state such a violation. “[T]he Due Process clause permits the State to treat a

11
For the Northern District of California

represented by counsel, testified on his own behalf but the administrative law judge

8

United States District Court

7

prison inmate who has a serious mental illness, with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if

12

the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate's medical

13

interest” as long as the decision to medicate against his will is neither arbitrary, nor

14

erroneous, and comports with procedural due process. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S.

15

210, 227-29 (1990). Simply stating that a witness lied, fails to demonstrate a violation of

16

due process as plaintiff was provided all the procedural protections and has failed to show

17

an erroneous or arbitrary decision.

18

Plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed and as plaintiff has already been

19

provided a chance to amend and as he failed to cure the deficiencies of the complaint, this

20

case is dismissed with prejudice. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

CONCLUSION

2

The complaint will be DISMISSED and as plaintiff has already been provided a

3

chance to amend and as he failed to cure the deficiencies of the complaint, the case is

4

DISMISSED with prejudice.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

///

7

///

8

Dated: March 18, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Whittaker.dis.wpd

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4