King v. Aldrich

Filing 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - Plaintiffs Request for Appointment of Counsel (contained in the Complaint) is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants will be allowed to waive service of summons by executing, or having their counsel execute, t he Waiver of Service of Summons as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) and returning it to the Court within 30 days. Signed by Senior Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CHADWIN KING,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00521-BLW
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
BY SCREENING JUDGE

CLINTON ALDRICH,
Defendant.

The Complaint of Plaintiff Chadwin King was conditionally filed by the Clerk of
Court due to his status as a prisoner and pauper. Dkts. 3, 1. A “conditional filing” means
that Plaintiff must obtain authorization from the Court to proceed. All prisoner and
pauper complaints seeking relief against a government entity or official must be screened
by the Court to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915
& 1915A. The Court must dismiss any claims that state a frivolous or malicious claim,
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
After reviewing the Complaint, the Court has determined that Plaintiff will be
permitted to proceed.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 1

REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
1. Standard of Law
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint fails to state a claim
for relief under Rule 8 if the factual assertions in the complaint, taken as true, are
insufficient for the reviewing court plausibly “to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Pro se complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
342 (9th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a
claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the
Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person
acting under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991).
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is an implementing statute that makes it possible to bring a cause
of action under the Amendments of the United States Constitution.
It is unclear whether Plaintiff was and is a convicted felon or a pretrial detainee
during the time period in question. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
applies to pretrial detainees and is violated when a detainee’s conditions of confinement
amount to punishment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). Pretrial detainees have
a due process right to adequate medical and mental health care while detained. See
Sanchez v. Young County, Texas, 956 F.3d 785, 791-92 (5th Cir. 2020).

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2

Detainees’ conditions-of-confinement claims are analyzed using an “objective
deliberate indifference standard.” Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25
(9th Cir. 2018). Under that standard, a detainee must establish the following elements:
“(1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under
which the plaintiff was confined [including a decision with respect to medical treatment];
(2) Those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (3) The
defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a
reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk
involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (4) By not
taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Sandoval v. Cnty. of
San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 669 (9th Cir.) (quoting Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125), cert. denied
sub nom. San Diego Cnty. v. Sandoval, 142 S. Ct. 711 (2021). To satisfy the third
element, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions were “objectively
unreasonable,” which requires “a showing of more than negligence but less than
subjective intent—something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. (citation omitted).
The application of this standard “will necessarily turn on the facts and circumstances of
each particular case.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

2. Summary of Allegations
During Plaintiff’s incarceration that began on July 28, 2023, Defendant Benewah
County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant Clinton Aldrich allegedly denied Plaintiff the
following types of treatment: (1) doctor-ordered mental health treatment for PTSD,

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 3

severe anxiety, manic-depressive disorder, and ADHD; (2) an eye exam and needed
eyeglasses; and (3) physical therapy for a compression fracture of Plaintiff’s vertebrae.
Aldrich allegedly told Plaintiff that treatment was unavailable because of lack of funding.
Plaintiff asserts that he used the jail grievance system to seek a remedy, but was afforded
none. Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant to provide proper medical and mental
health care to Plaintiff. He sues Defendant Aldrich in his individual and official capacity.
3. Discussion
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Aldrich was aware of Plaintiff’s serious
medical and mental health needs but intentionally refused to provide care. An inmate
must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs. The government therefore has
an obligation to provide medical care for those it chooses to incarcerate. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). There is a limit to medical care required by the
Constitution, whether evaluated under the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment:
Society does not expect that prisoners will have
unqualified access to health care. Hudson, 503 U.S. at [9],
112 S.Ct. at 1000. Deliberate indifference to medical needs
amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation only if those
needs are serious. Id. Where surgery is elective, prison
officials may properly consider the costs and benefits of
treatment in determining whether to authorize that surgery,
but the words “elective surgery” are not a talisman insulating
prison officials from the reach of the Eighth Amendment.
Each case must be evaluated on its own merits.
Delker v. Maass, 843 F. Supp. 1390, 1400 (D. Or. 1994). For pretrial detainees, jail
officials must provide care in instances where a detainee is under a substantial risk of
suffering serious harm. Sandoval, 985 F.3d at 669. Generally, the cost or inconvenience

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 4

of providing adequate conditions of confinement is not a defense. See Spain v. Procunier,
600 F.2d 189, 200 (9th Cir. 1979) (Eighth Amendment outdoor exercise context).
Plaintiff may proceed against Aldrich in his official capacity, which means that, if
Plaintiff prevails in this case, the Court will issue an order to Aldrich to provide adequate
care to Plaintiff. See Rounds v. Or. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 166 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th
Cir. 1999) (for injunctive relief claims, a plaintiff may name as defendants officials who
have direct responsibility in the area in which the plaintiff seeks relief); Ex Parte Young,
209 U.S. 123, 157-58 (1908) (claims for prospective injunctive relief against the state
may be brought as “official capacity” claims against state officials).
Plaintiff does not seek damages against Aldrich; therefore, Plaintiff may not
proceed against Aldrich in his individual capacity.
4. Conclusion
Plaintiff may proceed on his claims as limited herein. This Order does not
guarantee that any of Plaintiff’s claims will be successful or that they have been
presented in a procedurally proper manner. Rather, this Order merely finds that Plaintiff’s
claims are plausible—meaning that these claims will not be summarily dismissed at this
time but should proceed to the next stage of litigation. This Order is not intended to be a
final or a comprehensive analysis of Plaintiff’s claims.
5. Request for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. Dkt. 6, p. 18. Unlike criminal
defendants, prisoners and indigents in civil actions have no constitutional right to counsel
unless their physical liberty is at stake. Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 25
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 5

(1981). Whether a court appoints counsel for indigent litigants is within the court’s
discretion. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). When the court
does appoint counsel in civil rights actions, there is no designated federal fund from
which to pay counsel, and it is often difficult to find counsel willing to serve pro bono
(without compensation).
In civil cases, counsel should be appointed only in “exceptional circumstances.”
Id. To determine whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court should evaluate two
factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of the case, and (2) the ability of the
plaintiff to articulate the claims pro se considering the complexity of legal issues
involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). Neither factor is
dispositive, and both must be evaluated together. Id.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, liberally construed, states a claim upon which relief could
be granted if the allegations are proven at trial. Plaintiff states that he cannot proceed
adequately without an attorney because of various medical and mental health issues,
including vision problems and other issues for which he has not received treatment.
However, Plaintiff has adequately articulated his claims and has shown that he can
protect his interests to date. The Court will presently deny the motion for appointment of
counsel without prejudice, but it will consider whether appointment of counsel is needed
as the case progresses. Plaintiff may desire to seek private counsel on a contingency fee
basis.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 6

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Request for Appointment of Counsel (contained in the
Complaint) is DENIED without prejudice.

2.

Plaintiff may proceed on his Fourteenth Amendment claims of failure to
provide adequate medical and mental health care against Defendant
Clinton Aldrich.

3.

Defendants will be allowed to waive service of summons by executing, or
having their counsel execute, the Waiver of Service of Summons as
provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) and returning it to the Court within 30
days. If Defendants choose to return the Waiver of Service of Summons,
the answer or pre-answer motion will be due in accordance with Rule
12(a)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court will forward a copy of the
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 3), a copy of this Order, and a Waiver of Service
of Summons to the following counsel:
a.

Mariah Dunham, Benewah County Prosecutor, 701 College
Avenue, St. Maries, Idaho 83861.

4.

Should the Benewah County Prosecutor’s Office and Benewah County
determine that the individuals for whom counsel for the entity was served
with a waiver are not, in fact, its employees or former employees, or that its
attorney will not be appearing for the entity or for particular former
employees, it should file a notice within the CM/ECF system, with a copy

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 7

mailed to Plaintiff, indicating which individuals for whom service will not
be waived, indicating whether another attorney is authorized to accept
service of process for Defendant, and providing that information, if known.
5.

If Plaintiff receives a notice from Defendants indicating that service
will not be waived for an entity or certain individuals, Plaintiff will
have an additional 90 days from the date of such notice to file a
notice of physical service addresses of the remaining Defendants, or
claims against them will be dismissed without prejudice without
further notice.

6.

The parties must follow the deadlines and guidelines in the Standard
Disclosure and Discovery Order for Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights
Cases, issued with this Order.

7.

Any amended pleadings must be submitted, along with a motion to amend,
within 150 days after entry of this Order.

8.

Dispositive motions must be filed no later than 300 days after entry
of this Order.

9.

Each party must ensure that all documents filed with the Court are
simultaneously served upon the opposing party (through counsel if
the party has counsel) by first-class mail or via the CM/ECF system,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Each party must sign
and attach a proper mailing certificate to each document filed with
the court, showing the manner of service, date of service, address of

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 8

service, and name of person upon whom service was made.
10.

The Court will not consider ex parte requests unless a motion may
be heard ex parte according to the rules and the motion is clearly
identified as requesting an ex parte order, pursuant to Local Rule of
Civil Practice before the United States District Court for the District
of Idaho 7.2. (“Ex parte” means that a party has provided a
document to the court, but that the party did not provide a copy of
the document to the other party to the litigation.)

11.

All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the Court make
a ruling or take an action of any kind must be in the form of a
pleading or motion, with an appropriate caption designating the
name of the pleading or motion, served on all parties to the
litigation, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7, 10 and 11,
and Local Rules of Civil Practice before the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho 5.1 and 7.1. The Court will not
consider requests made in the form of letters.

12.

No party may have more than three pending motions before the
Court at one time, and no party may file a motion on a particular
subject matter if that party has another motion on the same subject
matter currently pending before the Court. Motions submitted in
violation of this Order may be stricken, summarily denied, or
returned to the moving party unfiled.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 9