Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF

Document 6

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

NOT FOR CITATION
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 12 -------No. C 07-4228 JF (PR) 5015

RAYMOND KING FERNANDES,
13

Plaintiff,
14

vs.
15

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,
16

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

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Alameda County Jail proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the denial of adequate medical care. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. The Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, and grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies in the original complaint. DISCUSSION A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify
Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd

1

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF

Document 6

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 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 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff alleges that he has not received sufficient medical care at the jail for his "numerous broken bones." Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). Indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment include the existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities, and the existence of chronic and substantial pain. Id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff's allegations of receiving "no relief" and "no cast no nothing" for his "numerous broken bones," when liberally construed, could amount to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. However, Plaintiff has not named any jail official as a defendant, nor has he

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd

2

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF

Document 6

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

alleged how any such individual official was involved in responding, or failing to respond, to his requests for medical attention. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's conduct that proximately caused a violation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff's names the following defendants in the complaint: "Prison Health Services," "Alameda County Sheriff's Department," "Nurses Station," and "Ortho Doctors." Naming the jail's medical department, or a group of nurses or doctors, does not suffice to plead a claim. Because an individual defendant cannot be held liable based solely on his membership in a group, a showing of his individual participation in unlawful conduct is required. See Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding instruction permitting jury to find individual liable as member of team, without any showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper). Similarly, naming the Alameda County Sheriff's Department as a whole does not suffice to plead a § 1983 claim because liability is dependent upon the actions of the individual employees. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) (rejecting concept of respondeat superior liability in § 1983 context and requiring individual liability for constitutional violation); see also Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding local government cannot be liable for damages based on actions of one of its employees unless employee inflicted constitutional harm). Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to identify, if possible, the jail officials involved in allegedly failing to provide him adequate care, and to set forth specific facts showing how each such Defendant's actions proximately caused a violation of his constitutional rights. CONCLUSION 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty days from

25

the date this order is filed to cure the deficiencies described above. The second amended
26 27 28

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (07-5015 JF (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, Plaintiff must include in
Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd

3

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF

Document 6

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the Defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaints, such as exhibits or supporting documentation of his prison administrative appeal, by reference. Plaintiff must include all of his claims and name all Defendants in the amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 2 It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed "Notice of Change of Address." He must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/29/08 JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd

4

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF

Document 6

Filed 03/04/2008

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:
Raymond K. Fernandes AHD-727 Santa Rita Jail 2-B-7 5325 Broder Blvd Dublin, CA 94568

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd

5