Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00210/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00210-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. MEDINA, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:13 cv 00210 GSA 

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

This action proceeds on the March 18, 2013, second amended complaint. Plaintiff is a 

civil detainee in the custody of the California Department of Mental Health (CDMH) at Coalinga 

State Hospital. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against defendant employees of the CDMH 

at Coalinga. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Physical Therapist R. Medina; 

Registered Nurse W. Contreras; R. Suzana RN, S. Valley; M. Morales; S. Mukibi. Plaintiff 

claims that he was subjected to inadequate medical care. Plaintiff also claims that he was 

subjected to excessive force. 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on February 21, 2013 (ECF No. 5).

Case 1:13-cv-00210-EPG Document 13 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 6
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

“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. 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)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff‟s allegations are vague and rambling. Plaintiff refers to unnecessary pain and 

suffering in connection with a delay in giving Plaintiff his medications. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Contreras gave him a pill after dropping it on the “filthy med rm floor.” Plaintiff 

alleges that after taking his medications, he experienced a rapid heartbeat, profuse sweating and 

impaired vision “to the point of blindness.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in an 

attempt to kill him.

Plaintiff alleges that, at some point, Defendant Morales failed to give him pain 

medication for his legs, leaving him in distress. Plaintiff also alleges that he was lured to the 

exam room by Defendant Suzana under false pretenses. Once Plaintiff was in the exam room, 

Suzana explained to Plaintiff “what should happen due to the fact that he is a SVP.” Plaintiff 

alleges that he “elected to leave the room before disaster struck.” Plaintiff alleges that as he was 

in the process of leaving, Defendant Suzana grabbed that back of his shirt, causing him to stop 

abruptly and injuring the “muscles and tendons in his back.” 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00210-EPG Document 13 Filed 05/16/14 Page 2 of 6
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

A. Medical Care

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff‟s right to medical care is protected by the 

substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Youngberg v. 

Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982). Under this provision of the Constitution, Plaintiff is “entitled 

to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoting 

Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22); cf. Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243-

44 (9th Cir. 2010)(pretrial detainees, who are confined to ensure their presence at trial and are 

afforded only those protections provided by the Eighth Amendment). Thus, to avoid liability, 

Defendants‟ decisions must be supported by “professional judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 

323. A defendant fails to use professional judgment when his or her decision is “such a 

substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to 

demonstrate that [he or she] did not base [his or her] decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 

457 U.S. at 323. 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth a generalized 

allegation regarding her health care, and names 6 individual defendants. To state a claim under 

section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) 

the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County 

of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person deprives another of a 

constitutional right, where that person „does an affirmative act, participates in another‟s 

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite 

causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in 

the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or 

reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting 

Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with conduct 

Case 1:13-cv-00210-EPG Document 13 Filed 05/16/14 Page 3 of 6
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

indicating that they acted contrary to professional judgment. Plaintiff may not hold defendants 

liable simply by alleging a serious medical condition and then charge defendants with the vague 

allegation that they neglected his condition. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each 

defendant acted in a way that was in violation of professional judgment. A vague allegation of 

delay in getting medication is insufficient. Plaintiff must charge each named defendant with 

specific conduct that violates the above standard. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The first 

amended complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to 

file a second amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff 

must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

B. Excessive Force

Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from 

violence.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (quoting Cortes-Quinones v. JimenezNettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st Cir. 1988)). To establish a violation of this duty, a prisoner 

must demonstrate that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the 

inmate‟s safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. This requires the prisoner to satisfy both an objective 

and a subjective component. First, the prisoner must demonstrate that the alleged deprivation 

was, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Id. at 834 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 

298 (1991)). Second, the prisoner must demonstrate that prison officials must have known of 

and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner‟s safety. Id. at 837.

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, 

rather than the Eighth Amendment. Fisher v. Bryant, 2:10 cv 2311 KJM DAD, 2012 WL 

3276968 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012)(Applying the Fourteenth Amendment due process standard to 

Case 1:13-cv-00210-EPG Document 13 Filed 05/16/14 Page 4 of 6
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 5

a claim of the excessive force brought by a civil detainee, rather than the standard set forth under 

the Eighth Amendment). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the aforementioned Eighth 

Amendment rights guaranteed for prisoners “set a floor for those that must be afforded to” civil 

detainees. Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 989 (9th Cir. 2007)summarily reversed on other 

grounds by Hunter v. Hydrick, 129 S.Ct. 2431 (2009). The objectively reasonable standard set 

forth by the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the “malicious and sadistic” standard of the 

Eighth Amendment, Fisher , 2012 WL 327 6986 *9 (E.D. Cal. 2012), applies to Plaintiff‟s claim.

Here, Plaintiff‟s allegations fail to meet the lower Fourteenth Amendment standard. 

Plaintiff alleges that after he was called to the medical clinic, he decided to leave. The only 

conduct charged to Defendant Suzana is that she grabbed Plaintiff‟s shirt in an attempt to stop 

him from leaving the clinic. The Court finds such an allegation, even construed in Plaintiff‟s 

favor, indicates that Suzana acted in an objectively reasonable manner. This claim should 

therefore be dismissed. 

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

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. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

Case 1:13-cv-00210-EPG Document 13 Filed 05/16/14 Page 5 of 6
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 6

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

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

1. Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure 

to state a claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

second amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, 

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00210-EPG Document 13 Filed 05/16/14 Page 6 of 6