Cranford v. State of Nevada, et al

Filing 6

SCREENING ORDER that a decision on the 4 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is deferred. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Amended Complaint 4 -1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend. The State of Nevada and Nevada Dept of Corrections are dismissed with prejuidce as amendment would be futile. Plaintiff's 2 and 5 Motions for Preliminary Injunction are denied. Second amended complaint deadline: 30 days fr om the date of entry of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/12/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - complaint instructions/form, and amended complaint mailed to Plaintiff - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

DUKE F. CRANFORD,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

11
12

Defendants.
___________________________________

)
)
) Case No. 2:15-cv-02189-GMN-PAL
)
)
)
)
SCREENING ORDER
)
)
)
)

13

Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”),

14

has submitted an amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application

15

to proceed in forma pauperis, and motions for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 4-1, 4, 2, 5). The matter of

16

the filing fee shall be temporarily deferred. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s amended1 civil rights

17

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

18

I.

SCREENING STANDARD

19

Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

20

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

21

1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are

22

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from

23

a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings,

24

however, must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

25

1990). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) the

26

violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the alleged

27

violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

28
1

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint prior to the Court screening his original complaint.
Accordingly, the Court finds the amended complaint to be the operative complaint and screens it now.

1

48 (1988).

2

In addition to the screening requirements under § 1915A, pursuant to the Prison Litigation

3

Reform Act (PLRA), a federal court must dismiss a prisoner’s claim, if “the allegation of poverty is

4

untrue,” or if the action “is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,

5

or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

6

Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is provided for in

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the court applies the same standard under § 1915 when

8

reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. When a court dismisses a complaint

9

under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with directions as to curing

10

its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured

11

by amendment. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

12

Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab.

13

Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper

14

only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle

15

him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In making this

16

determination, the court takes as true all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint, and the

17

court construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d

18

955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than

19

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980). While the standard

20

under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more than

21

mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic

22

recitation of the elements of a cause of action is insufficient. Id.

23

Additionally, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings [allegations] that, because

24

they are no more than mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

25

556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

26

must be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a

27

court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

28

to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief . . . [is] a context2

1

specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

2

Id.

3

Finally, all or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may therefore be dismissed sua sponte if

4

the prisoner’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on legal

5

conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit or claims of

6

infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based on fanciful factual

7

allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28

8

(1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

II.

10

SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at

11

High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). (ECF No. 4-1 at 1). Plaintiff sues the State of Nevada,2 the

12

Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”),3 Warden Stroud, Director McDaniels, Romeo

13

Aranas, nurse Molly, and Dr. Leaks. (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff alleges one count and seeks monetary and

14

injunctive relief. (Id. at 4, 9).

15

Plaintiff alleges the following in his complaint: On November 1, 2015, he awoke with a

16

foreign object lodged in his left eye. (Id. at 4). After failing to wash it out, on November 2, 2015,

17

Plaintiff spoke with nurse Molly who was unable to remove the object. (Id.). Plaintiff filed an

18

emergency grievance and for several days he complained that his left eye was in pain. (Id.). On

19

November 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed an informal grievance. (Id.). Plaintiff woke up daily with his left

20

eye sealed shut and became fearful of going blind. (Id.). Plaintiff wrote requests to Director

21

McDaniels, Romeo Aranas, and Warden Stroud. (Id.). The object remains in his eye. (Id.).

22

Plaintiff alleges that the actions of defendants are “negligent and unreasonable and a

23

violation of [his] constitutional rights.” (Id.).

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims against the State of Nevada, as amendment would
be futile. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989) (holding that states are not
persons for purposes of § 1983).
3

The NDOC is an arm of the State of Nevada and is not a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat. Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997); Black v. Nevada
Dep’t of Corr., 2:09-cv-2343-PMP-LRL, 2010 WL 2545760, *2 (D. Nev. June 21, 2010). As such, the
Court dismisses with prejudice all claims against the NDOC, as amendment would be futile.
3

1

A.

Eighth Amendment - Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need

2

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual

3

punishment and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity,

4

and decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). A prison official violates the Eighth

5

Amendment when he acts with “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical needs of an inmate.

6

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). “To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, a

7

plaintiff must satisfy both an objective standard—that the deprivation was serious enough to

8

constitute cruel and unusual punishment—and a subjective standard—deliberate indifference.”

9

Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012).

10

To establish the first prong, “the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by

11

demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or

12

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)

13

(internal quotations omitted). To satisfy the deliberate indifference prong, a plaintiff must show “(a)

14

a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm

15

caused by the indifference.” Id. “Indifference may appear when prison officials deny, delay or

16

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison

17

physicians provide medical care.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). When a prisoner alleges that

18

delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led

19

to further injury. See Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.

20

1985) (holding that “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of

21

deliberate medical indifference”).

22

However, “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a

23

medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth

24

Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the

25

victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Even gross negligence is

26

insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391

27

F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004).

28

Plaintiff fails to state a colorable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.
4

1

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that defendants were negligent in treating the object in his eye.

2

Negligence is insufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to

3

serious medical needs. Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to

4

amend.

5

B.

Leave to Amend

6

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint to cure the deficiencies of the

7

amended complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint he is advised that a

8

second amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must

9

be complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542,

10

1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is

11

irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693

12

F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not

13

required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal).

14

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations

15

that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiff must file the amended complaint

16

on this Court’s approved prisoner civil rights form and it must be entitled “Second Amended

17

Complaint.”
The Court notes that if Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint curing the

18
19

deficiencies as outlined in this order, Plaintiff shall file the second amended complaint within 30

20

days from the date of entry of this order. If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint

21

curing the stated deficiencies, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a

22

claim.

23

III.

24

MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff has filed two motions for injunctive relief (ECF No. 2, 5) seeking an “eye

25

doctor not affiliated with the Nevada Department of Corrections . . . to remove the foreign object

26

from Plaintiff’s left eye.” (ECF No. 2 at 2).

27
28

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff
5

1

seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

2

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

3

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los

4

Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). Furthermore, under

5

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), preliminary injunctive relief must be “narrowly

6

drawn,” must “extend no further than necessary to correct the harm,” and must be “the least intrusive

7

means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

8

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits or that he is likely to

9

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief

10

(ECF No. 2, 5) are denied.

11

IV.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED a decision on the application to proceed in

forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is deferred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the amended complaint
(ECF No. 4-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed without
prejudice, with leave to amend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Nevada and the Nevada Department of
Corrections are dismissed with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (ECF No.
2, 5) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint

23

curing the deficiencies of his complaint, as outlined in this order, Plaintiff shall file the second

24

amended complaint within 30 days from the date of entry of this order.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send to Plaintiff the

26

approved form for filing a § 1983 complaint, instructions for the same, and a copy of his amended

27

complaint (ECF No. 4-1). If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must use the

28

approved form and he shall write the words “Second Amended” above the words “Civil Rights
6

1
2
3

Complaint” in the caption.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint
curing the deficiencies outlined in this order, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice.

4
5

12
DATED: This _____ day of May, 2016.

6
7

_________________________________
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7