Bullock v. State of California

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Second Amended Complaint due by 8/29/2014. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/29/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

STACEY DWAYNE BULLOCK,
Plaintiff,

8
vs.

9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-2159 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se
13
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with
14
leave to amend and plaintiff 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, 556 U.S. 662,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

679 (2009).

12

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

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.

17
18

Legal Claims
Plaintiff states that he received inadequate medical care at San Quentin State

Prison.

19

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

20

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

21

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

22

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

23

A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the

24

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to

25

that need. Id. at 1059.

26

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

27

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The

28

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of
2

1

comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

2

individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of

3

indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.

4

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

5

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps

6

to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only

7

“be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious

8

harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have

9

been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth
Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison

12

medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v.

13

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

14

The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend to provide additional

15

information, yet the amended complaint is only two pages and fails to cure the deficiencies

16

discussed by the court. Plaintiff states that he injured his right hamstring and Nurse Neal

17

failed to provide pain medicine, a wrap, crutches, or move his housing to a ground floor.

18

Plaintiff states that Dr. Espinoza did not perform an X-ray or MRI. No more information is

19

provided. The amended complaint fails to describe a constitutional violation. Plaintiff will

20

be allowed one final opportunity to amend. Plaintiff must provide more information

21

regarding his injuries and how the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

22

medical needs.

23

CONCLUSION

24

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with

25

the standards set forth above. The second amended complaint must be filed no later than

26

August 29, 2014, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

27

and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended

28

complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the
3

1

claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

2

He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference.

3

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

4

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

5

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

6

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.14\Bullock2159.dwlta2.wpd

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