(PC) Clouse v. Amador County Jail Medical

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 GARRETT THOMAS CLOUSE, No. 2:23-cv-0671 DB P

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER

14 AMADOR COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL, et

al.,

15

Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he received inadequate medical care while incarcerated at

19 Amador County Jail in 2021. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

20 pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his complaint (ECF No. 1) for screening. For the reasons set forth

21 below, the undersigned will direct plaintiff to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account

22 statement and dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

23 IN FORMA PAUPERS

24 Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

25 (ECF No. 2.) However, plaintiff has not filed a certified copy of his inmate trust account

26 statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28

27 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). The court will grant plaintiff an opportunity to submit a certified copy of his

28 inmate trust account statement.

1 SCREENING

2 I. Legal Standards

3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

4 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. §

5 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims

6 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

7 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

8 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

9 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

10 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

11 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

13 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

14 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

15 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain

16 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

17 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell

18 AtlanticCorp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

19 (1957)).

20 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must

21 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain

22 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic,

23 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

24 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.

25 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all

26 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

27 ////

28 ////

1 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

2 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

3 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

4 or other proper proceeding for redress.

5 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

6 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

7 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

8 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

9 meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

10 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

11 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

12 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

13 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

14 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

15 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

16 Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations

17 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

18 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

19 II. Allegations in the Complaint

20 Plaintiff states the events giving rise to the claim occurred while he was incarcerated at

21 Amador County Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) He has identified Dr. Sun, physician at Amador County

22 Jail and “All Medical Staff” at Amador County Jail as defendants in this action. (Id. at 2.)

23 Plaintiff states that while he was incarcerated at Amador County Jail in 2021, he had

24 kidney stones. (Id. at 3.) He alleges he “told the doctor [he] had issues with [his] kidneys. He

25 said I did not and would not help me. So from August to April 2021 I had two surgerys [sic] for

26 kidney damage due to kidney stones that were not taken care of when asked in the beginning.”

27 (Id.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in relief. (Id. at 4.)

28 ////

1 III. Does Plaintiff State a Claim under § 1983?

2 At the outset the court notes that plaintiff has not indicated whether he is a pretrial

3 detainee or a convicted prisoner. This difference is important for determining the applicable legal

4 standards. “[T]he Fourteenth Amendment prohibits all punishment of pretrial detainees.”

5 Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004). “This standard differs significantly from

6 the standard relevant to convicted prisoners, who may be subject to punishment so long as it does

7 not violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar against cruel and unusual punishment.” Pierce v. Cnty.

8 of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008). The court has determined that the allegations are

9 insufficient to state a claim under either standard as set forth below.

10 A. Legal Standards

11 1. Fourteenth Amendment Right to Medical Care

12 “[M]edical care claims brought by pretrial detainees . . . ‘arise under the Fourteenth

13 Amendment’s Due Process Clause, rather than under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual

14 Punishments Clause.’” Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation

15 omitted). Therefore, “claims for violations of the right to adequate medical care ‘brought by

16 pretrial detainees against individual defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment’ must be

17 evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference standard.” Id. at 1124-25.

18 To allege a claim for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right to medical care, a

19 detainee must allege facts showing:

20 (1) The defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which

21 the plaintiff was confined;

22 (2) Those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm;

23 (3) The defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even

24 though a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk

25 involved – making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and

26 (4) By not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Castro v.

27 Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016). “With respect to the third element,

28 the defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable, a test that will necessarily turn[] on the

1 facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

2 omitted).

3 2. Eighth Amendment Right to Medical Care

4 To prevail on a claim of cruel and unusual punishment a prisoner must allege and prove

5 that objectively he suffered a sufficiently serious deprivation and that subjectively prison officials

6 acted with deliberate indifference in allowing or causing the deprivation to occur. Wilson v.

7 Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99 (1991). If a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim arises in the

8 context of medical care, the prisoner must alleged and prove “acts or omissions sufficiently

9 harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429

10 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). An Eighth Amendment medical claim has two elements: “the seriousness of

11 the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need.” McGuckin

12 v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc.

13 v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

14 A medical need is serious “if the failure to treat the prisoner’s condition could result in

15 further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” McGuckin, 974

16 F.2d at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Indications of a serious medical need include

17 “the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities.” Id.

18 at 1059-60. By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the

19 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

20 825, 834 (1994).

21 If a prisoner establishes the existence of a serious medical need, he must then show that

22 prsion officials responded to the serious medical need with deliberate indifference. See Farmer,

23 511 U.S. at 834. In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when the prison officials deny,

24 delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or may be shown by the way in which

25 prison officials provide medical care. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th

26 Cir. 1988).

27 ////

28 ////

1 B. Analysis

2 Plaintiff alleges that he was suffering from kidney stones, he did not receive timely

3 treatment, and as a result he had to have surgery and suffers from permanent damage due to the

4 delay in treatment. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) Such allegations are sufficient to show a that plaintiff

5 was at risk of suffering serious harm under the Fourteenth Amendment standard and had a serious

6 medical need under the Eighth Amendment standard. However, the allegations do not contain

7 sufficient facts to show that defendants’ response to his medical need was deficient under either

8 standard because he has not indicated when officials were informed of his kidney stones and the

9 response. In the absence of such facts, the undersigned cannot find that the complaint states a

10 cognizable claim.

11 In any amended complaint, plaintiff should include allegations stating when the

12 defendants were informed of his health concerns and the action taken in response, if any.

13 Plaintiff should also state with specificity which wrongs were committed by which defendants.

14 See Fegbohungbe v. Caltrans, No. 13-cv-3801 WHO, 2014 WL 644008, at *3 n.4 (finding “[t]he

15 general allegation regarding ‘defendants’ is . . . insufficient on its face because it does not identify

16 which specific defendants” were responsible for the alleged harms); Chevalier v. Ray and Joan

17 Kroc Corps. Cmty. Ctr., No. C 11-4891 SBA, 2012 WL 2088819, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012)

18 (finding complaint failed to “identify which wrongs were committed by which Defendant”

19 insufficient to state a claim).

20 AMENDING THE COMPLAINT

21 As set forth above, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. However, plaintiff will

22 be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that in an amended

23 complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated

24 his constitutional rights. The court is not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s

25 charging allegations are as to each named defendant. The charging allegations must be set forth

26 in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting.

27 That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff

28 should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

1 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought

2 in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must

3 contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who

4 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right.

5 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation

6 of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act

7 he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation).

8 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

9 R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed.

10 R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

11 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

12 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

13 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

14 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

15 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

16 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

17 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

18 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

19 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.

20 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all prior pleadings are superseded.

21 Any amended complaint should contain all of the allegations related to his claim in this action. If

22 plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims against the defendant, they must be set forth in the amended

23 complaint.

24 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and

25 has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose

26 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

27 ////

28 ////

1 CONCLUSION

2 For the reasons set forth above, ITIS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3 1. Plaintiff shall submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the six

4 | month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint within thirty days of the date of

5 || service of this order.

6 2. Plamtiff’s complamt (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend.

7 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

8 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

9 | Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket

10 | number assigned to this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.”

11 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

12 | dismissed.

13 | Dated: October 12, 2023

14

15

16 ORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17

18

19

20 DBDB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/S/clou0671.scrn

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28