Webb v. Ducart et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 5/1/2017. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2017)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

RICHARD DE’VONN WEBB,
Plaintiff,

6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.

7
8

Case No. 17-cv-00330-HSG (PR)

C.E. DUCART, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

INTRODUCTION

12

Plaintiff, an inmate at Centinela State Prison, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights

13

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and staff at Pelican Bay State Prison

14

(“PBSP”), where he was previously incarcerated. He is granted leave to proceed in forma

15

pauperis in a separate order. Based upon a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 1915A, it is dismissed with leave to amend.
ANALYSIS

17
18

A.

Standard of Review

19

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

20

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental

21

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and

22

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

23

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

25

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

26

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

27

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not

28

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

1

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

2

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more

3

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

4

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”

5

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must

6

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a

7
8

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the

9

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988).

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

B.

12

Legal Claims
According to the complaint, from June 2015 to January 2016, while incarcerated at PBSP,

13

defendants failed to treat plaintiff for his Graves Disease. As a result, plaintiff suffered extreme

14

weight loss and body aches. Plaintiff was also placed in Administrative Segregation, where he

15

was misdiagnosed by psychiatric and medical staff.

16

Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical

17

needs. He names the following individuals as defendants: PBSP Wardens Ducart and Barnes,

18

Adam Nancy, M.D., M. Sayer, M.D., Ronn Johnson, Ph.D., David Archambault, Ph.D., and Susan

19

Risenhoover, FNP.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

infliction of pain.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059.
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

draw the inference.” Id. “Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious

6

medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment. . . . Mere

7

negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a

8

prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)

9

(citation omitted); see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-36 & n.4 (recognizing that neither negligence nor

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference).
Plaintiff’s allegations that he suffered from Graves Disease, which went untreated and/or

12

misdiagnosed, establish that he had a serious medical need. However, the complaint does not

13

sufficiently link any named defendant to this claim. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations

14

regarding the failure to provide medical treatment amount, at most, to negligence, which is

15

insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (negligence in treating

16

medical condition does not state valid Eighth Amendment claim). Therefore, the Eighth

17

Amendment claim is dismissed. Dismissal is with leave to amend for plaintiff to add allegations

18

that show defendants knew about plaintiff’s serious medical need and deliberately prevented

19

plaintiff from receiving medical care or failed to treat his serious medical need. In his amended

20

complaint, plaintiff must link one or more defendants to this claim by stating what each proposed

21

defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional rights.

22

With respect to named defendants Ducart and Barnes, plaintiff has indicated that he named

23

these individuals as defendants because they hired or contracted out the medical staff defendants.

24

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees.

25

See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no respondeat

26

superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor may be liable only on a showing of (1) personal

27

involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

28

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d
3

1

991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff is given leave to amend to add such allegations, if he

2

truthfully can do so.
CONCLUSION

3
4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as follows:

5

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

6

2.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff must file an amended

7

complaint to cure the deficiencies noted above, if he truthfully can do so. Plaintiff shall use the

8

court’s civil rights complaint form, a copy of which is provided herewith, and include in the

9

caption both the case number of this action, No. C 17-0330 HSG (PR), and the heading
“AMENDED COMPLAINT.” Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

result in the dismissal of the action.
3.

12

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

13

“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in

14

the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981).

15

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference.
4.

16

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

17

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

18

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do

19

so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

20

Civil Procedure 41(b).
5.

21
22
23
24

The Clerk shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of this

order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/31/2017

25
26
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
4