The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 FREDERICK BROWN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01271-JDP (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
13 v. PAUPERIS
14 MARY PATTERSON, et al., ECF No. 2
15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF:
16 (1) FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT; OR
17
(2) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT
18 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION
THAT IT BE DISMISSED
19
ECF No. 1
20
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
21
22 Plaintiff Frederick Brown is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights
23 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a complaint containing three separate and
24 unrelated claims, none of which are cognizable. See ECF No. 1. I will give plaintiff an
25 opportunity to file an amended complaint that contains only related claims and that cures the
26 deficiencies in his allegations. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that his complaint be
27 dismissed. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
28
1 Screening and Pleading Requirements
2 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental
3 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable
4 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
5 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
6 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).
7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not
10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not
13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024,
14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that
15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264
16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404
18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it
19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).
21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements
22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251,
23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
24 Analysis
25 Plaintiff’s complaint contains three separate and unrelated claims. First, he alleges that,
26 while detained at Stanton Correctional Facility (“SCF”) in Solano County, a nurse for Well Path
27 Medical gave him the wrong medication, causing his health to deteriorate and his blood pressure
28 to rise to dangerous levels. ECF No. 1 at 3. Second, he alleges that medical personnel have
1 declined or failed to provide certain soft shoes that he was prescribed for his diabetes, causing
2 him pain and difficulty walking. Id. at 4. Third, he alleges that during the adjudication of his
3 criminal case, several of his constitutional rights were violated by the presiding judge, defendant
4 Healy. Id. at 5.
5 These claims bear insufficient factual and legal relation to each other and so are unsuited
6 to proceed in a single action. See, e.g., George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)
7 (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits.”). Although two of
8 plaintiff’s claims concern inadequate medical care, that is the extent of their similarity: whether a
9 nurse exhibited deliberate indifference by providing plaintiff the wrong medication is a different
10 question from whether Well Path exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide him soft
11 shoes. Plaintiff’s third claim, alleging constitutional violations related to the adjudication of his
12 criminal case, is unrelated to the medical care he received while at SCF. Plaintiff, if he amends
13 his complaint, should ensure that his claims stem from “the same transaction, occurrence, or
14 series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). If he fails to abide by that rule, I
15 may add or drop parties as justice requires.
16 Even if plaintiff’s claims had been brought independently of each other, they would not
17 survive screening in their current form.
18 Claims of inadequate medical care “brought by pretrial [or civil] detainees against
19 individual defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment must be evaluated under an objective
20 deliberate indifference standard.” Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir.
21 2018). Under this standard, plaintiff must allege facts from which to infer: (1) “[t]he defendant
22 made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was
23 confined;” (2) “[t]hose conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm;”
24 (3) the defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable . . . ; and (4) [b]y not taking such
25 measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” Id. (citing Castro v. Cnty. of Los
26 Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)). The “mere lack of due care by a state
27 official does not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth
28 Amendment.” Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071 (citations omitted). Thus, to adequately plead objective
1 deliberate indifference, plaintiff must plead facts from which to infer that a defendant acted with
2 “something akin to reckless disregard” for his health. Id.
3 Plaintiff’s first claim does not meet this standard. He alleges that his health began to
4 deteriorate after a nurse, whom he does not identify, gave him the wrong medication; it is unclear
5 whether plaintiff is alleging more than one such incident. ECF No. 1 at 3. This claim cannot
6 survive screening because it fails to identify a defendant responsible for the alleged actions.1 See
7 Bonnette v. Dick, No. 18-0046, 2020 WL 3412733, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) (holding that
8 allegations do not provide sufficient notice when they “fail to adequately describe specific actions
9 taken by each of the defendants named in the complaint”). Moreover, without additional facts, an
10 allegation that a nurse committed an error on a single occasion indicates a mere lack of due care
11 or negligence, which is insufficient to state a claim of objective deliberate indifference. See
12 Eiland v. Doe, No. 2:18-CV-1042-MCE-KJN-P, 2018 WL 2684163, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 5,
13 2018) (holding that an allegation that a physician “misdiagnosed plaintiff’s pain and swelling as
14 gout and prescribed a drug he should not have taken for three days” does not state a claim of
15 objective deliberate indifference”).
16 In his second claim, plaintiff alleges that defendant Well Path Medical failed to provide
17 him with the soft-soled shoes that he was prescribed for his diabetes and gout. ECF No. 1 at 4.
18 Although this claim comes closer to supporting an inference of deliberate indifference to
19 plaintiff’s medical needs, it similarly fails to identify improper conduct by an individual
20 defendant, naming only Well Path as a defendant. “Organizational defendants” like Well Path
21 “are not vicariously liable for the torts of their employees and agents under § 1983 . . . [,] but
22 [they] may be liable for their unconstitutional policies and customs.” Est. of Miller v. Cty. of
23 Sutter, No. 2:20-CV-00577-KJM-DMC, 2020 WL 6392565, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020)
24 (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that Well Path maintained an unconstitutional policy
25 or custom. Plaintiff is advised that he must “allege with at least some degree of particularity
26
1 Plaintiff names three defendants but does not connect any of them with the facts alleged
27 in Claim I. A later filing appears to clarify that “the nurse” mentioned in his allegations is
defendant Patterson. This does not suffice. Plaintiff is advised that a complaint must be complete
28 on its face without reference to another pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220.
1 overt acts which defendants engaged in that support [his] claim.” Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment
2 Agency of City of Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984).
3 Finally, plaintiff’s remaining claim, alleging several constitutional violations associated
4 with his criminal case, fails for two reasons. ECF No. 1 at 5. First, defendant Healy—the only
5 defendant named in connection with this claim—is a state court judge and is therefore “absolutely
6 immune from damage liability for acts performed in [his] official capacit[y].” Ashelman v. Pope,
7 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986). Second, to the extent plaintiff is seeking to challenge the
8 outcome of his criminal case or the validity of his confinement, § 1983 is not the proper vehicle.
9 See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2005).
10 I will give plaintiff leave to amend his complaint before recommending that this action be
11 dismissed. If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will
12 supersede the current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012)
13 (en banc). This means that the amended complaint must be complete on its face without
14 reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is
15 filed, the current complaint no longer serve any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as
16 in an original complaint, plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s
17 involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended
18 Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does not file an amended
19 complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.
20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
21 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted.
22 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended
23 complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter
24 option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.
25 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.
26 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.
27
28
1
| 1718 SO ORDERED.
3 ( —
Dated: __April 26, 2022 Jess Vote
4 JEREMY D. PETERSON
; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
ul
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
29
23
24
25
26
27
28