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)

Download PDF
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

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?