Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02687/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02687-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK D. MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA RITA COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant. /

No. C 15-2687 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Derrick D. Moore, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an

amended civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the Court

dismisses the amended complaint with leave to amend. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims,

and dismiss any claims which 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. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 8 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II. Legal Claims

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because there were

multiple plaintiffs, and because Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim was insufficient. In

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Santa Rita County Jail is violating

his right to equal protection because, while Plaintiff is a state prisoner being housed in a

county facility, he is not eligible for 33% work time credits like those inmates housed in a

state facility. Also, inmates housed in state prison are afforded cheaper commissary items

and allowed other privileges, whereas Plaintiff not. Liberally construed, these allegations

state a cognizable claim for relief. 

However, the amended complaint does not state a claim against the Santa Rita County

Jail. The Santa Rita County Jail is a place. On the other hand, the County of Alameda is a

local government, which is a “person” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To

impose municipal liability under Section 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a

plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she

was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate

indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving force

behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. # 40 County of Yamhill, 130

F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Liberally construed, Plaintiff has done so. Santa Rita County

Jail is DISMISSED. Plaintiff is given leave to amend to name the proper Defendant.

Plaintiff’s amended claim of deliberate indifference fails to state a claim. Plaintiff

alleges that he turned in multiple requests to see the dentist, and still has not seen one. 

Plaintiff also alleges that it took six months before Plaintiff was permitted to see the eye

doctor. However, the allegations do not give rise to a reasonable inference that these delays

were caused by a “policy” of the municipality. There is no liability under the theory that one

is liable simply because he employs a person who has violated plaintiff’s rights. See Monell

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 8 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). However, liability may be imposed on

an individual defendant under Section 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the

meaning of Section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative

act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation

of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. The inquiry into causation must be

individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant

whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. Id.

Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead “set forth specific

facts as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Id. at 634. 

In addition, plaintiff is advised that, in order to state a claim that a defendant was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) he had a

serious medical need, and (2) the defendant knew that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of

serious harm, and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it, see

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). See 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). If Plaintiff can do so in good faith, Plaintiff must name

a proper Defendant and provide sufficient facts to support an inference that the Defendant or

Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.

Because district courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend

to correct any deficiency in their complaints, the amended complaint will be dismissed with

leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

CONCLUSION

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If Plaintiff

believes he can cure the above-mentioned deficiencies in good faith, he must file a second

amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date this order is filed. The second

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 15-

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 8 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

2687 NC (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Failure to file a second amended complaint within twenty-eight days and in accordance

with this order may result in the dismissal of this case. The Clerk of the Court is directed

to send Plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of this order. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint supersedes the previous

complaints. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which

are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

3. 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,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02687-NC Document 8 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 4