Haden v. Chapelle

Filing 16

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/19/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

STEVEN HADEN,

Case No. C 13-5512 KAW (PR)

Plaintiff,
6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.

7

KEVIN CHAPELL, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10
Plaintiff Steven Haden, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”),

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his

13

constitutional rights by the warden and medical staff at SQSP. Plaintiff has consented to the

14

jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge over this action. Plaintiff has filed

15

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a completed IFP application, which

16

is granted in a separate order. The Court now addresses the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s

17

complaint.

18
19
20

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

21

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims

23

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek

24

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

25

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

26

Cir. 1988).

27
28

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

1

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

2

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the

3

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the

5

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Caifornia Dep’t of Corrections &

6

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.

7

1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives

8

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act,

9

participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to

10

do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. Under no

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074. Or,

12

in layman's terms, under no circumstances is there liability under § 1983 solely because one is

13

responsible for the actions or omissions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

14

1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984).

15

A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the

16

constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful

17

conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir.

18

2012). It is insufficient for a plaintiff only to allege that supervisors knew about the constitutional

19

violation and that they generally created policies and procedures that led to the violation, without

20

alleging “a specific policy” or “a specific event” instigated by them that led to the constitutional

21

violation. Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012).

22

II.

23

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff sues Warden Kevin Chappell, Andrew Deems, CEO, Health Care Services and

24

four other individuals on the medical staff at SQSP. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “have

25

individually and or in collusion, willfully and knowingly, violated my right to adequate medical

26

care, by deliberate indifference, refusing to provide expert diagnosis, treatment and prognosis in

27

regards to a chronic gastrointestinal problem, and frequent, painful bouts of constipation and

28

bloating from gas.” Comp. at 3.
2

1

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth

2

Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,

3

1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d

4

1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when

5

two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and

6

(2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. Farmer v.

7

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a

8

prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton

9

infliction of pain.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. A prison official exhibits deliberate indifference
when he knows of and disregards a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the

12

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the

13

inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the

14

official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County

15

of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). In order for deliberate indifference to be

16

established, therefore, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant

17

and resulting harm. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. Deliberate indifference may be shown when

18

prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown in

19

the way in which they provide medical care. Id. at 1062.

20

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations of his gastrointestinal condition meets the first

21

Farmer requirement of showing a serious medical need. However, because Plaintiff’s complaint

22

lacks allegations regarding any Defendant’s actions in relation to his serious medical need, his

23

complaint fails to show that any Defendant acted with deliberate indifference. Accordingly, this

24

claim is dismissed with leave to amend to provide allegations demonstrating Defendants acted

25

with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

26
27
28

CONCLUSION
1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set
forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this
3

1

Order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words

2

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces

3

the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik

4

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the

5

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the

6

dismissal of this action.

7

2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

8

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

9

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so
may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Procedure 41(b).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: 3/19/14

____________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4