liability may be 16 imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show that defendant 17 proximately caused deprivation of federally protected right
How later courts described this case
- liability may be 16 imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show that defendant 17 proximately caused deprivation of federally protected right
- “The federal 22 courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers 23 in the performance of their duties.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 KENT CRAIG, Case No. 19-cv-05661-EMC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
9 v. TO AMEND
10 CRAIG KOENIG, Docket No. 1
11 Defendant.
12
13 I. INTRODUCTION
14 Kent Craig, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this pro se
15 civil action. His petition is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
16 II. BACKGROUND
17 Mr. Craig commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of mandate that cites, among
18 other things, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as
19 authority for the action. The petition consists primarily of legal argument with only a few facts.
20 Mr. Craig alleges that he was provided a lower bunk chrono on January 23, 2018, and then
21 was ordered by unnamed staff to relocate to another cell on April 26, 2019, where a lower bunk
22 was not available. Mr. Craig also alleges he has had back problems for many years. His inmate
23 appeals allegedly were unsuccessful. He conclusorily alleges that his rights under the ADA as
24 well as the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution were
25 violated. He also alleges that someone was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The
26 petition lists the warden, the CDCR and “et al.” as respondents. Docket No. 1 at 1.
27 III. DISCUSSION
1 seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28
2 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any
3 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
4 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at
5 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
6 Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
7 Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's
8 obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
9 conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual
10 allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic
11 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
12 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.1
13 A. Petition For Writ Of Mandate Is The Wrong Form Of Action
14 The threshold problem here is that a petition for writ of mandate is the wrong form of
15 action for Mr. Craig’s issues. The federal mandamus statute provides: “The district courts shall
16 have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or
17 employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28
18 U.S.C. § 1361. The federal mandamus statute only reaches federal officers and employees. A
19 petition for a writ of federal mandamus to compel a state official to take or refrain from some
20 action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62
21 (9th Cir. 1991); cf. Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966) (“The federal
22 courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers
23 in the performance of their duties.”) The terms “mandate” and “mandamus” are often used
24 interchangeably. Cf. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1084 (“The writ of mandamus may be denominated a
25
1 This requirement that the pleader allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
26
its face stems from the rule that a complaint must allege “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
27
8(a)(2) “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only . . . give the defendant fair
1 writ of mandate”).
2 This Court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandate or mandamus to compel the
3 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or any of its employees to take
4 particular actions because they are state rather than federal actors. Thus, the petition for writ of
5 mandate is DENIED. Although Mr. Craig cannot go forward with a petition for writ of
6 mandamus, his claims are of the sort that might be presented in a civil rights action against
7 appropriate defendants. The Court will allow Mr. Craig to file an amended complaint to attempt
8 to state his claims in a proper pleading and with proper allegations.
9 B. Claims For Relief Under The ADA and RA
10 Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as
11 amended and codified in 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“RA”), prohibit discrimination on the basis of a
12 disability in the programs, services or activities of a public entity. Federal regulations require a
13 public entity to “make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the
14 modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public
15 entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the
16 service, program, or activity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
17 The elements of a cause of action under Title II of the ADA are: (1) the plaintiff is an
18 individual with a disability; (2) the plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the
19 benefit of some public entity's services, programs, or activities; (3) the plaintiff was either
20 excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity's services, programs or
21 activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion,
22 denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff's disability. Thompson v. Davis,
23 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). A cause of action under § 504 of the RA essentially parallels
24 an ADA cause of action. See Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 590 (1999); Duvall v. County of
25 Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001).
26 Monetary damages are not available under Title II of the ADA absent a showing of
27 discriminatory intent. See Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1998). To
1 Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1138. Deliberate indifference requires: (1) knowledge that a harm to a
2 federally protected right is substantially likely, and (2) a failure to act upon that likelihood. Id. at
3 1139. The first prong is satisfied when the plaintiff identifies a specific, reasonable and necessary
4 accommodation that the entity has failed to provide, and the plaintiff notifies the public entity of
5 the need for accommodation or the need is obvious or required by statute or regulation. Id. The
6 second prong is satisfied by showing that the entity deliberately failed to fulfill its duty to act in
7 response to a request for accommodation. Id. at 1139-40. Punitive damages may not be awarded
8 in suits brought under Title II of the ADA. Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S.181, 189 (2002).
9 Mr. Craig may attempt to allege a claim for a violation of his rights under the ADA and
10 RA in his amended complaint. He is reminded to include allegations of fact showing what his
11 disability was, and the accommodation that was needed but not provided to him. The Court will
12 not read through exhibits to piece together a claim for a plaintiff. Mr. Craig should attempt to be
13 clearer as to whether his problem is that the CDCR refuses to recognize him as having a disability
14 covered by the ADA or that the CDCR agrees he has a covered disability but refuses to provide
15 reasonable accommodations for him. The CDCR, as the public entity operating the CTF-Soledad
16 prison, would be a proper defendant for an ADA/RA claim. Individual workers at the prison are
17 not proper defendants for the ADA/RA claim.
18 C. Claims For Relief Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
20 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
21 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487
22 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
23 Mr. Craig’s petition mentions the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and
24 deliberate indifference to medical needs, but does not allege any facts to go with these potential
25 claims. If he wishes to pursue such claims in his amended complaint, he must address several
26 deficiencies.
27 First, Mr. Craig’s pleading contains far more legal argument than facts; it does not allege
1 United States by any defendant. Leave to amend is granted so that Mr. Craig may file an amended
2 complaint that proffers enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Mr.
3 Craig is cautioned that he must provide a full statement of his claims in his amended complaint.
4 The Court will not read through exhibits to piece together a claim for a plaintiff.
5 Second, the complaint does not link any defendant to any constitutional violation. The
6 only individual named as a defendant is warden Koenig, but there are no allegations as to what
7 warden Koenig did or failed to do that caused a violation of Mr. Craig’s constitutional rights. In
8 his amended complaint, Mr. Craig must allege facts showing his entitlement to relief from each
9 and every defendant who he proposes to hold liable on the claim. Mr. Craig may name as
10 defendants those individuals whose acts or omissions caused the violation of his rights under the
11 Constitution or laws of the United States. He must be careful to allege facts showing the basis for
12 liability for each individual defendant. He should not refer to them as a group (e.g., “the
13 defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each of them to
14 his claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his
15 constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (liability may be
16 imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show that defendant
17 proximately caused deprivation of federally protected right). If he wants to sue a supervisor, he
18 must allege facts showing (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a
19 sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional
20 violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). Mr. Craig also named the
21 CDCR as a defendant. Mr. Craig cannot hold the legal entity liable on a § 1983 claim simply
22 because it employs the individual wrongdoers who violated his rights.2 There is no respondeat
23 superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the
24 actions or omissions of another, such as an employee. See Board of Cty. Comm'rs. of Bryan Cty.
25 v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139, 1144 (9th
26 Cir. 2012).
27
1 Third, the Court provides basic legal information about the Eighth Amendment, Due
2 Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause – the three constitutional provisions Mr. Craig
3 alluded to in his petition. Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates the
4 Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble,
5 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). To establish an
6 Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate medical care, a prisoner-plaintiff must show: (1) a
7 serious medical need, and (2) deliberate indifference thereto by a defendant. A prison official is
8 deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and
9 disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
10 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the inference
11 could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the
12 inference.” Id. If he wishes to assert an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, Mr.
13 Craig must allege facts showing both a serious medical need and deliberate indifference thereto by
14 specific defendants.
15 The nature of a due process claim in which Mr. Craig might be interested is not clear, but it
16 may be that he thinks the denial of his inmate appeals violated due process. There is no
17 constitutional right to a prison or jail administrative appeal or grievance system in California, and
18 therefore no due process liability for failing to process or decide an inmate appeal properly. See
19 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
20 Cir. 1988). A prison official who denies an inmate appeal about an ongoing constitutional
21 violation might have liability for the constitutional violation itself if that official is in a position to
22 prevent or stop a constitutional violation and fails to do so, but a prison official who denies an
23 inmate appeal about a constitutional violation that already has occurred and is complete (e.g., an
24 exclusion of the inmate from a religious ceremony on a past date or failing to treat an inmate for
25 influenza that has ended) does not have liability for that violation because he is not in a position to
26 avert the constitutional violation. See generally Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir.
27 2006) (supervisor may be liable for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, for instance,
1 A claim that a person has been treated differently from similarly situated people implicates
2 || his right to equal protection of the laws. “To state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Equal
3 Protection Clause a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to
4 || discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” Thornton v. City
5 of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
6 IV. CONCLUSION
7 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
8 which relief may be granted. Leave to amend is granted so that Plaintiff may attempt to allege one
9 or more claims in an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be filed no later than
10 || February 17, 2020, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the
11 words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended
12 complaint must be a complete statement of his claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d
13 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to
14 amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve
15 || them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be
a 16 || waived if not repled.”) Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the
3 17 dismissal of the action.
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21 Dated: January 17, 2020
22
<4
ED M. CHEN
24 United States District Judge
25
26
27
28