Johnson v. Chapell et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/5/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2014)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Case No.: C 14-1300 CW (PR)

PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.

11
12
13
14

CHAPELL, Warden, CDC STAFF,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT, and MEDICAL
STAFF AT SAN QUENTIN STATE
PRISON,
Defendants.

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State
18
Prison (SQSP), has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to
19

42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his constitutional

20

rights.

21

granted in a separate order.

His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

22
23
24

DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any

25

case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity

26

or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

27

§ 1915A(a).

28

claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail

28 U.S.C.

In its review, the court must identify any cognizable

1

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary

2

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

3

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

4

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

5

1988).

Id.

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed.

6

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must

7

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

8

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

9

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

under the color of state law.

11

(1988).

12
13
14
15

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s
actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation of a
federally protected right.

Lemire v. Cal. Dept. Corrections &

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v.
16
Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988.

A person deprives

17
another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section
18
1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's
19
20
21

affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally
required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff
complains.

Leer, 844 F.2d at 633.

Under no circumstances is

22

there respondeat superior liability under section 1983.

23

727 F.3d at 1074.

24

is there liability under section 1983 solely because one is

25

responsible for the actions or omissions of another.

26

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno

27

Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir.

28

1984).

Lemire,

Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances

Taylor v.

A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a
2

1

showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional

2

deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

3

supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.

4

Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012).

5

insufficient for a plaintiff only to allege that supervisors knew

6

about the constitutional violation and that they generally created

7

policies and procedures that led to the violation, without

8

alleging “a specific policy” or “a specific event” instigated by

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

them that led to the constitutional violations.

It is

Hydrick v.

Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012)
II. Plaintiff's Allegations
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following.

Plaintiff

suffers from degenerative disc disease of the lumber spine,
degenerative disease of the right hip and scoliosis of the upper

14
spine which cause him severe nerve pain.

One of Plaintiff’s legs

15
is longer than the other which adds to his spine and hip pain.
16
Plaintiff also has an umbilical hernia which causes him a high
17
18
19

level of pain.

Three days prior to his arrest on August 11, 2013,

Plaintiff “fell three-stories” and, as a result of this fall,
there is something wrong with his right shoulder, head and spine.

20

Plaintiff suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and has

21

memory problems because of his head injuries.

22

SQSP medical staff refuse to provide Plaintiff with proper

23

pain medication or to order X-rays or MRIs for his spine, hip,

24

shoulder and head injuries.

25

Plaintiff with mobility devices such as a cane, orthotic shoes, a

26

shoe lift and a lower tier bunk.

27
28

Medical staff also refuse to provide

Plaintiff seeks damages and a preliminary injunction
requesting relief such as: (1) X-rays and MRIs for his spine, hip,
3

1

shoulder and head; (2) narcotic pain medication three times per

2

day; (3) mobility devices; (4) regular appointments with mental

3

health staff; (5) a sonogram for his heart valves because he

4

suffers from heart pain and has symptoms of heart trouble; (6) a

5

prostate examination because he has had problems using the

6

bathroom for the last four years; and (7) transfer to another

7

prison because, in 2008 when he was at SQSP, he was falsely

8

accused and convicted of a “threat to staff” charge and now feels

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

that he is in danger from correctional officers.
A. Claim for Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs
violates the Eighth Amendment.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.
13
1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v.
14
Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

A prison

15
official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements
16
17
18

are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently
serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately
indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety.

Farmer v. Brennan,

19

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

20

failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further

21

significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of

22

pain.”

23

deliberate indifference when he knows of and disregards a

24

substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.

25

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

26

A “serious” medical need exists if the

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059.

A prison official exhibits

In order for deliberate indifference to be established, there

27

must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the

28

defendant and resulting harm.

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.
4

1

Deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny,

2

delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may

3

be shown in the way in which they provide medical care.

4

1062.

Id. at

1. Claim for Damages

5

The allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint fail to state a

6
7

claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

8

Even if Plaintiff’s medical conditions qualify as serious medical

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

needs, he fails to name any specific individual who failed to
treat his medical needs.

He mentions that “a Russian sounding

nurse” made fun of his 602 appeal and he “thinks” his doctor’s
name is “Dr. Hanna,” but he is not sure and refers to her as “Dr.
Jane Doe.”

These allegations fail to identify sufficiently any

13
individual who violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights.
14
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for damages must be
15
dismissed with leave to amend for Plaintiff to name specific
16
17
18

individuals who denied him medical care with the state of mind
that amounts to deliberate indifference.
634.

See Leer, 844 F.2d at

To show an individual acted with deliberate indifference,

19

Plaintiff must include factual allegations indicating how that

20

person denied, delayed or intentionally interfered with

21

Plaintiff’s medical treatment, or provided medical care in a way

22

that indicates his or her deliberate indifference.

23

974 F.2d at 1062.

24

acted with deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must include factual

25

allegations that the supervisor had (1) personal involvement in

26

the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal

27

connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the

28

constitutional violation.

See McGuckin,

To state a cognizable claim that a supervisor

See Henry, 678 F.3d at 1003-04.
5

1

2. Request for Immediate Injunctive Relief

2

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s request for immediate

3

injunctive relief as a request for a temporary restraining order

4

(TRO) or preliminary injunction.

5

failure to satisfy the notice requirements of Federal Rule of

6

Civil Procedure 65.

7

notice to the adverse party is required.

8

65(a)(1).

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

This request must be denied for

Prior to granting a preliminary injunction,
Fed. R. Civ. P.

A request for a preliminary injunction therefore cannot

be decided until the parties to the action are served, and they
have not yet been served here.
727 (9th Cir. 1983).

See Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719,

A TRO may be granted without written or oral

notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney if: (1) it
clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the

13
verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or
14
damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or
15
the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the
16
17
18

applicant’s attorney (plaintiff himself in this case, as he
proceeds pro se) certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which
have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the claim

19

that notice should not be required.

20

Plaintiff has not satisfied either requirement.

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

The standards for issuing a TRO and preliminary injunction

22

are the same.

23

Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977).

24

“an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear

25

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”

Winter v.

26

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).

The

27

proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a

28

party to demonstrate “(1) that he is likely to succeed on the

See New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox

6

A preliminary injunction is

1

merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the

2

absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities

3

tips in his favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public

4

interest.”

5

Cir. 2009).

6

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th

As a corollary to this test, the Ninth Circuit has also found

7

a preliminary injunction appropriate if “serious questions going

8

to the merits were raised and the balance of the hardships tips

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

sharply in the plaintiff's favor,” thereby allowing preservation
of the status quo where complex legal questions require further
inspection or deliberation.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.

Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010).
At this early stage in the proceeding, it is not possible to

13
determine if Plaintiff meets the test for injunctive relief.
14
Therefore, the claims for injunctive relief will not be addressed
15
until Plaintiff’s claims are served on properly named Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20

B. Claim for Unsafe Prison Conditions
In his request for injunctive relief, Plaintiff alludes to
the fact that SQSP is not safe for him because he feels threatened
by unnamed officers.
The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take

21

reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prisoners.

22

511 U.S. at 832.

23

inmates from dangerous conditions at the prison violates the

24

Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the

25

deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious; and

26

(2) the prison official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent

27

to inmate safety.

Farmer,

The failure of prison officials to protect

Id. at 834.

28
7

1

A claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety

2

fails because he has not named any individual in relation to this

3

claim.

4

in an amended complaint, naming specific individuals and including

5

factual allegations showing how they acted with deliberate

6

indifference to his safety.

If Plaintiff wishes to re-allege this claim, he may do so

CONCLUSION

7
8

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

9

1.

Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.

2.

Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in order to cure
the deficiencies noted above.
Plaintiff shall use the court's civil rights complaint form,
a copy of which is provided herewith, and include in the caption

14
both the case number of this action, No. C 14-1300 CW (PR), and
15
the heading "AMENDED COMPLAINT."

Because an amended complaint

16
completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include
17
18
19

in it all the claims he wishes to present.

See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

Plaintiff may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.

20

If Plaintiff fails timely to file an amended complaint in

21

conformity with this Order, the case will be dismissed without

22

prejudice and will be closed.

23

3.

It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case.

24

He must keep the Court informed of any change of address and

25

must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion.

26

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action,

27

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to

28

prosecute.
8

1
2

4.

The Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff with a

blank civil rights complaint form.

3
4

Dated: 6/5/2014
________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9