Blake v. Santa Clara Department of Corrections et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 10/7/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SHAWNCEY BLAKE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT
)
GILETTE; LIEUTENANT TAYLOR;
)
CAPTAIN SEPULVEDA,
)
)
Defendants.
__________________________________ )

No. C 14-3727 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

17
INTRODUCTION
18
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se civil rights
19
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that he was disciplined in retaliation for
20
pursuing complaints in administrative grievances and in the courts. His application to
21
proceed in forma pauperis is granted in a separate order. The complaint is dismissed
22
with leave to amend.
23
STANDARD OF REVIEW
24
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
25
seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
26
28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
27
dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
28

1

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

2

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

3

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement

5

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not

6

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

7

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

8

(2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need

9

detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

10

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

11

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must

12

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

13

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer

14

"enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974. Pro se

15

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

16

699 (9th Cir. 1990).

17

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

18

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

19

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

20

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

21

LEGAL CLAIMS

22

Plaintiff alleges that he filed an administrative grievance with jail officials

23

requesting his medical records and a doctor’s appointment. Defendant Gilette told him

24

not to contact “Internal Affairs Agent Linda Kowell” about these complaints. Plaintiff

25

then contacted Kowell, complaining that he had not received his records or a response to

26

his requests. Plaintiff was then disciplined. He claims that the discipline was in

27

retaliation for his grievance, his complaints to Kowell, and his attempts to present his

28

claims in the courts.

1

Plaintiff has not alleged any conduct by defendant Santa Clara County

2

Department of Corrections, which is a department of the municipality of Santa Clara

3

County. To impose liability under Section 1983 against a municipal entity such as Santa

4

Clara County for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the

5

plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the

6

municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the

7

plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the

8

constitutional violation. Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432,

9

438 (9th Cir. 1997); see Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).

10

Plaintiff does not allege any policy by Santa Clara County that allegedly led to the

11

retaliation against him. Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint in

12

which he cures this deficiency, if he can do so in good faith.

13

Plaintiff has also not alleged any conduct by Defendants Sepulveda or Taylor, and

14

he has not alleged how Defendants Gilette and Kowell retaliated against him. Even at

15

the pleading stage, "[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that

16

an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v.

17

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634

18

(9th Cir. 1988). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must allege what actions each

19

individual took or failed to take that caused the retaliation or other constitutional

20

violation.

21

CONCLUSION

22

This case is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

23

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within twenty eight (28) days from the

24

date this order is filed. Plaintiff is advised to use the Court’s complaint form. The

25

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

26

(No. C 14-3727 JSW (PR)) and the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED

27

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

28

the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992),

1

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original by reference. Failure to amend

2

within the designated time and in accordance with this order will result in the dismissal

3

of this action.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
DATED: October 7, 2014
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

SHAWNCEY BLAKE,

8

Plaintiff,

Case Number: CV14-03727 JSW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

v.
SANTA CLARA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
ET AL et al,

11
Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on October 7, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

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

Shawncey Blake #14019586/DUJ72
Elmwood Complex Men's Facility
701 South Abel Street
Milpitas, CA 95035
Dated: October 7, 2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk