Smith v. Mack et al
Filing
30
ORDER Granting 27 MOTION FOR SCREENING OF 11 First Amended Complaint; Requiring Moving Defendants to Reply to First Amended Complaint; Requiring Meet and Confer re Service; Setting Case Management Conference. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/9/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/30/2013. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
No. C 13-0246 PJH
ALONZO SMITH,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
DR. R. MACK, et al.,
Defendants.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
/
12
13
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SCREENING OF FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT;
REQUIRING MOVING
DEFENDANTS TO REPLY TO
FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT; REQUIRING
MEET AND CONFER RE
SERVICE; SETTING CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Plaintiff Alonzo Smith, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State
14
Prison, has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original pro se complaint was
15
dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff, now represented, has filed a first amended
16
complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and has since
17
paid the filing fee in full. Plaintiff’s counsel served the summons and complaint on six of the
18
nine named defendants. Defendants M. Sensi, R.T.C. Grounds, V. C. Munk, G. Ellis and
19
R. Mack have filed a motion for screening of the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
20
21
22
23
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
24
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
25
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
26
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
27
be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at
28
1915A(b)(1), (2).
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of
2
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary;
3
the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
4
grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations
5
omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual
6
allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’
7
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
8
cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
9
above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the
12
“plausible on its face” standard of Twombly as follows: “While legal conclusions can provide
13
the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there
14
are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
15
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566
16
U.S. 622, 679 (2009).
17
B.
Legal Claims
18
Plaintiff alleges that his jaw was broken in a fight and that he was seen at A Facility
19
at SVSP by defendant Wittenberg, who transferred plaintiff to the clinical treatment center
20
(“CTC”) for treatment. Plaintiff spent six weeks in the CTC, during which time he was
21
allegedly harassed by Correctional Officer Para and Doe defendant members of the CTC
22
custody staff. At CTC, plaintiff became ill and began vomiting; Doe defendants denied
23
plaintiff assistance for two days, then a nurse cut the wire holding his jaws shut to allow him
24
to clear his mouth upon vomiting. His jaws were not rewired back together, and plaintiff
25
was returned to his housing unit at SVSP with an order for a soft-chopped diet. Plaintiff
26
alleges that after informing the infirmary staff that he could not eat regular meals, he was
27
not provided a soft chopped food diet to make it easier to eat. Plaintiff alleges that he had
28
difficulty eating the regular meal because of the pain caused by even slight jaw movement.
2
1
He alleges that defendants Mack, Munk, Knorton, Wittenberg, Baker, Senisi, and Doe
2
defendants refused to help him or provide the medically required diet. Plaintiff alleges that
3
he has continued to suffer severe pain in his jaw, that he has not been able to eat normally,
4
that his pain medication is inadequate, that he is constantly hungry, that he has lost weight,
5
and that his speech has been affected. He further alleges that defendants Grounds and
6
Ellis established the practice and policies by which their subordinates denied plaintiff proper
7
medical care.
8
C.
9
Screening
In the February 13, 2013 initial screening order, the court held that the allegations
were sufficient to state a constitutional claim against defendants Dr. Munk and Dr. Mack for
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
the failure to provide him a sufficient diet. However, the court dismissed the claims against
12
the remaining defendants with leave to amend, except as to Canchola, for failure to link
13
them to the alleged Eighth Amendment deprivation. Because plaintiff’s claims are
14
governed by section 1915A, the court is required to review the FAC. It appears from the
15
docket that plaintiff’s counsel obtained issuance of the summons and had service effected
16
on defendants Wittenburg, M. Sensi, R.T.C. Grounds, V. C. Munk, G. Ellis and R. Mack.
17
Doc. nos. 14, 17-21. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s contention that a paralegal was told by a
18
clerk of the court that the screening had already been completed, the record shows that the
19
court has not reviewed the claims asserted in the FAC, as required by section 1915A.
20
Defendants’ request for screening is therefore GRANTED, and the court proceeds with its
21
review of the FAC.
22
Medical claims like the one presented by plaintiff are actionable under section 1983
23
only if plaintiff is able to allege facts plausibly asserting that he was the victim of deliberate
24
indifference to a serious medical need, a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription
25
against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);
26
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by
27
WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A
28
determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the
3
1
seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to
2
that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059.
3
Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the
protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of
6
Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a
7
constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act,
8
participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally
9
required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844
10
F.2d at 633. The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and
11
For the Northern District of California
plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally
5
United States District Court
4
responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have
12
caused a constitutional deprivation. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633 (citations omitted). Plaintiff
13
must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” actions which violated his
14
rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. At the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not
15
simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation
16
of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
17
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical
18
need against defendants Mack, Munk, Knorton, Wittenberg, Baker, and Senisi, who is
19
identified by defense counsel as M. Sensi. As to defendant Para, however, the allegations
20
that Para refused to allow plaintiff out for recreation or fresh air during the six weeks he was
21
at CTC fails to allege a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in
22
violation of his civil rights.
23
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief against defendants Grounds, the warden of
24
SVSP, and Ellis, the CEO of medical services, to direct them to provide plaintiff with
25
dietary, pain relief or other ongoing care measures pursuant to an independent medical
26
evaluation. Failure to provide a system of ready access to adequate medical care, failure
27
to provide a medical staff competent to examine and diagnose inmates’ problems and
28
failure to treat the problems or refer the inmates to others who could, for physical, dental
4
1
and mental health problems, are violations of the Eighth Amendment. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682
2
F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515
3
U.S. 472 (1995). The allegations of the FAC are sufficient to state a plausible claim for
4
injunctive relief against Grounds and Ellis.
5
Plaintiff also seeks relief against correctional officer Para and defendant Baker for
6
suppressing his written grievances and medical requests in violation of his First
7
Amendment rights. There is no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance
8
procedure, and the FAC fails to identify a right protected by the First Amendment. See
9
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640
(9th Cir. 1988). To the extent plaintiff alleges that his grievances were improperly
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
suppressed, these allegations fail to state a cognizable claim.
12
13
14
CONCLUSION
1.
Defendants’ motion for screening of plaintiff’s first amended complaint is
GRANTED.
15
2.
Defendant Para is DISMISSED with prejudice.
16
3.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), defendants M. Sensi, R.T.C. Grounds,
17
V. C. Munk, G. Ellis and R. Mack are ordered to file an answer or otherwise respond to the
18
first amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date of this order.
19
4.
As summonses have not yet issued for defendants Baker and Knorton,
20
counsel for plaintiff and the moving defendants are directed to meet and confer as to
21
whether defense counsel will waive service of summons and accept service for Baker and
22
Knorton, who plaintiff alleges are employed at SVSP. If the parties do not reach an
23
agreement as to service, plaintiff’s counsel may file, within twenty-one days of the date of
24
this order, a request for issuance of summons and service by the United States Marshal on
25
Baker and Knorton, pursuant to plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Alternatively, plaintiff’s
26
27
28
5
1
counsel may serve the summons, a copy of the complaint with attachments and a copy of
2
this order on defendants Baker and Knorton.
3
5.
An initial case management conference is set for January 9, 2014, at 2:00
4
p.m., in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California.
5
Counsel shall meet and confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the Case
6
Management Conference with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c).
7
Not less than seven (7) days before the conference, counsel shall file a joint case
8
management statement addressing each of the items listed in the "Standing Order For All
9
Judges Of the Northern District -- Contents of Joint Case Management Statement," which is
available on the court website. A proposed order is not necessary. Following the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
conference, the court will enter its own Case Management and Pretrial Order. If any party
12
is proceeding without counsel, separate statements may be filed by each party.
13
Each party shall appear personally or by counsel prepared to address all of the
14
matters referred to in this Order and with authority to enter stipulations and make
15
admissions pursuant to this Order. Any request to reschedule the date of the conference
16
shall be made in writing, and by stipulation if possible, at least ten (10) calendar days
17
before the date of the conference and must be based upon good cause.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: October 30, 2013
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?