Parra v. Bridgnell
Filing
18
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. The amended complain t must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words "THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT" on the first page and write in the case number for this action, Case No. C 12-04312 EJD (PR). If using the court form complaint, pla intiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further not ice to Plaintiff. The Clerk shall include two copies of the court's amended complaint with a copy of this order to plaintiff. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/13/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Form Habeas Complaint)(ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
OSBALDO PARRA,
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
14
E. BRIDGNELL,
15
Defendant.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 12-04312 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
17
18
Plaintiff has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against
19
medical officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. The prior complaint was dismissed
20
with leave to amend and Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint.
21
DISCUSSION
22
23
24
A.
Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a
25
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
26
governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must
27
identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious,
28
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
04312Para_dwlta2.wpd
1
defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se
2
pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
3
Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
4
5
elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States
6
was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting
7
under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
8
B.
9
Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend as he only provided
the most basic allegations of improper medical care and more specific information
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
was required. Unfortunately, the second amended complaint has failed to provide
12
sufficient additional information. While Plaintiff has identified the Defendants, he
13
has failed to describe his serious medical needs. Plaintiff has a medical problem
14
with his leg, though he does not describe it for the Court. Plaintiff’s leg was X-
15
rayed and he was given ibuprofin. A month later his leg hurt a great deal, but
16
nothing was done by Defendants. A month later Plaintiff was only provided
17
Tylenol. At some point Plaintiff was taken to the hospital where he was given
18
antibiotics to kill an infection. Plaintiff provides no other information, instead
19
providing many pages of exhibits. Yet, according to the exhibits, Plaintiff had a
20
bump on his leg, but he was not in severe pain at the beginning, just a dull constant
21
aching of his leg. There was no fever, no discoloration, no pulsation, no shortness of
22
breath, no weight loss and no other symptoms. It appears when the symptoms did
23
become worse, he was given a higher level of care. It seems Plaintiff is asserting
24
that Defendants should have known earlier that the minor problem was going to get
25
worse. This fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference. The complaint will be
26
dismissed with one final opportunity to amend for Plaintiff to provide more details
27
about his medical care. Simply attaching exhibits is insufficient, as is just stating his
28
leg hurt and he received inadequate care.
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
04312Para_dwlta2.wpd
2
A complaint must contain more than a "formulaic recitation of the elements
1
2
of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient to "raise a right to
3
relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
4
(2007). "The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that
5
merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action." Id. "[A]
6
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
7
relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
8
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
9
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth
12
Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v.
13
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th
14
Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d
15
1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.
16
1986). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two
17
elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the
18
defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059.
19
CONCLUSION
20
For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave
21
22
to amend. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff
23
shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption
24
and civil case number used in this order and the words “THIRD AMENDED
25
COMPLAINT” on the first page and write in the case number for this action, Case
26
No. C 12-04312 EJD (PR). If using the court form complaint, plaintiff must answer
27
all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed.
28
///
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
04312Para_dwlta2.wpd
3
1
Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended
2
complaint will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and
3
without further notice to Plaintiff.
4
5
The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s amended complaint with a
copy of this order to plaintiff.
6
7
DATED:
2/13/2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend
04312Para_dwlta2.wpd
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OSBALDO PARRA,
Case Number CV 12-04312 EJD (PR)
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
E. BRIDGNELL,
Defendant.
/
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
2/14/2013
That on ______________________________, 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) inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
Osbaldo Parra
K-63368
CSP - SAC
P.O. BOX 290066
REPRESA, CA 95671-0066
2/14/2013
DATED: ________________________
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/ By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?