From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cazares-Montes v. Kern County Sheriff's Dept

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 24, 2007
CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00031-OWW-SMS PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00031-OWW-SMS PC.

July 24, 2007


ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 1)


I. Screening Order

A. Screening Standard

Plaintiff Gustavo Cazares-Montes ("plaintiff") is a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 27, 2005.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). "Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. "'The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.'" Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) ("'Pleadings need suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim. . . .'" (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n. 9 (1989). "[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled." Bruns v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim

Plaintiff was an inmate housed at the Kern County Sheriff's Department Pre-Trial Facility when the events at issue in this action allegedly occurred. Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief from the Kern County Sheriff's Department and medical staff for allegedly violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff's claim arises from the alleged overdose of prescription medication.

Because plaintiff is no longer housed at the Pre-Trial Facility, plaintiff may not seek the award of injunctive relief in this action. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995);Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991).

A local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Rather, a local government unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185.

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability requires an allegation that "a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the 'moving force' behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered." Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Alternatively, and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local government unit's omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson at 1186. Under this route to municipal liability, the "plaintiff must show that the municipality's deliberate indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit the constitutional violation." Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing "that the municipality was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional violation." Id.

In this instance, plaintiff's claim is based on the alleged overdose of prescription medication by jail staff members. The complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a claim against the Sheriff's Department under a municipal liability theory. Plaintiff may not seek to hold the Sheriff's Department liable simply because it is the employer of the jail staff. Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Sheriff's Department under section 1983.

In addition, plaintiff's allegations fall short of supporting a claim that any individual staff members acted or failed to act in a manner that rose to the level of a constitutional violation. To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve "the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner's claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) "the prison official deprived the prisoner of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,'" and (2) "the prison official 'acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.'"Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quotingHallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may be manifested "when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment," or in the manner "in which prison physicians provide medical care." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992),overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

Plaintiff alleges negligence and gross negligence of jail staff. A complaint of negligence "does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff's claim that he was overdosed with prescription medication due to staff negligence fails to state a claim under section 1983 for violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights.

C. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in this order.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;
2. The Clerk's Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint; and
4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 I. Previous Lawsuits (list all other previous or pending lawsuits on back of this form): II. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies ALL NOTICE: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 42 U.S.C. § 1997ebefore Booth v. Churner 532 U.S. 731 741 McKinney v. Carey 311 F.3d 1198 1999 Even if you are seeking only money damages and the inmate appeal or administrative remedy process does not provide money, you must exhaust the process before filing suit. Booth 532 U.S. at 734 III. Defendants IV. Statement of Claim facts V. Relief.

Plaintiff's Name __________________________ Inmate No. _______________________________ Address __________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA _____________________________________________________________________________________ (Name of Plaintiff) (Case Number) vs. AMENDED COMPLAINT Civil Rights Act, __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ (Names of all Defendants) A. Have you brought any other lawsuits while a prisoner? Yes _____ No _____ B. If your answer to A is yes, how many? _______________ Describe previous or pending lawsuits in the space below. (If more than one, use back of paper to continue outlining all lawsuits.) 1. Parties to this previous lawsuit: Plaintiff ____________________________________________________________________________________ Defendants ___________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ 2. Court (if Federal Court, give name of District; if State Court, give name of County) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Docket Number ________________________ 4. Assigned Judge _______________________________ 5. Disposition (For example: Was the case dismissed? Was it appealed? Is it still pending?) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Filing date (approx.) ________________ 7. Disposition date (approx.) __________________ A. Is there an inmate appeal or administrative remedy process available at your institution? Yes _____ No _____ B. Have you filed an appeal or grievance concerning of the facts contained in this complaint? Yes _____ No _____ If your answer is no, explain why not _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ C. Is the process completed? Yes ___ If your answer is yes, briefly explain what happened at each level. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ No _____ If your answer is no, explain why not. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, "[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." (a). If there is an inmate appeal or administrative remedy process available at your institution, you may not file an action under Section 1983, or any other federal law, until you have first completed (exhausted) the process available at your institution. You are required to complete (exhaust) the inmate appeal or administrative remedy process filing suit, regardless of the relief offered by the process. , , (2001); , , (9th Cir. 2002). , . (In Item A below, place the full name of the defendant in the first blank, his/her official position in the second blank, and his/her place of employment in the third blank. Use item B for the names, positions and places of employment of any additional defendants.) A. Defendant _________________________________ is employed as __________________________________ __________________________ at __________________________________________________________ B. Additional defendants _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ (State here as briefly as possible the of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved, including dates and places. Do not give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. Attach extra sheets if necessary.) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ (State briefly exactly what you want the court to do for you. Make no legal arguments. Cite no cases or statutes.) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date ______________________________ Signature of Plaintiff ________________________________ (revised 2/10/2006)


Summaries of

Cazares-Montes v. Kern County Sheriff's Dept

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 24, 2007
CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00031-OWW-SMS PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2007)
Case details for

Cazares-Montes v. Kern County Sheriff's Dept

Case Details

Full title:GUSTAVO CAZARES-MONTES, Plaintiff, v. KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 24, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00031-OWW-SMS PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2007)

Citing Cases

Abdur-Raqiyb v. Erie County Medical Center

Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Chance, 143 F.3d at 703) (additional internal…