Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01223/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01223-2/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GUNINDER KAUR,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-01223-AWI-BAM

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

(ECF No. 10) 

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. On October 18, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 

complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on October 26, 2016, 

is currently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

1

I. Screening Requirement

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the 

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

 

1 On September 27, 2016, after the filing of this action, Plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant subject to a 

pre-filing order in Cranford v. Crawford, Case No 1:14-cv-00055-AWI-MJS. As the instant action was filed prior 

to that order, the Court will screen the first amended complaint to determine if Plaintiff states a cognizable claim. 

Case 1:16-cv-01223-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must 

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Allegations in Complaint

Plaintiff is housed at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”), where the events in the complaint 

are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Guninder Kaur, R.N. as the sole defendant. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Now comes plaiaitiff Cranford hoom states that the defendant mrs Kaur violated 

my right to medical privacy by informing a nuther staff member of my medical 

condishion the outher staff member was not a member of the medical staff and the 

medical matter was that the plaintiff was having sevear chest pains and reported 

the fact to the defendant which she informed the staff member hoom was not a 

member of the medical staff what should have been done was that the defendant 

should have taken plaintiffs vitals and keept doing so for 3 separt times and if the 

vitals where high for 3 times apart from each outher then he the plaintiff would 

have been placed in the U.C.R. unit of coalinga state hospital and the non medical 

staff would not have knowen eneything about the process that should have taken 

place in short just the reverse took place there for my righjt to medical privacy 

was violated and my right to adequate medical care was violated as well.

(ECF No. 10, p. 1) (unedited text). Plaintiff identifies no specific form of relief. 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff is currently a civil detainee being held as a sexually violent predator. He alleges 

that his right to medical privacy was violated when Defendant Kaur informed another staff 

member that Plaintiff was having severe chest pains. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant 

Kaur should have taken his vitals. 

A. Right to Privacy

The United States Constitution protects a right to privacy regarding “the individual 

interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977). 

The Ninth Circuit has found a constitutionally protected interest in avoiding disclosure of 

personal matters, including medical information, in certain circumstances. See NormanCase 1:16-cv-01223-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The 

constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters clearly 

encompasses medical information and its confidentiality.”). Assuming the existence of a right in 

avoiding unauthorized disclosure of medical information for civil detainees, Seaton v Mayburg, 

610 F.3d 530, 537-41 (9th Cir. 2010), Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim 

that is plausible on its face.

In particular, Plaintiff fails to identify the circumstances surrounding the disclosure. For 

instance, the Court cannot determine whether the other individual was present when Plaintiff was 

experiencing chest pains, if Plaintiff also disclosed his condition to the other individual, or if the 

disclosure was in connection with providing treatment, evaluation, or care to Plaintiff. 

Where the disclosure it to a government employee, as suggested in this case, “[t]he 

privacy protection afforded medical information is not absolute; rather, it is a conditional right 

which may be infringed upon a showing of proper governmental interest.” Roe v. Sherry, 91 

F3d 1270 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Lawall, 

307 F.3d 783, 790 (9th Cir. 2002). In making the determination whether a governmental interest 

outweighs the individual’s privacy interest, courts must balance the following factors: (1) the 

type of information, (2) the potential harm in non-consensual disclosure, (3) the adequacy of 

safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure, (4) the degree of need for access, and (5) whether 

there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public 

interest militating toward access. Id.; Seaton, 610 F.3d at 534-35.

Absent further detail surrounding the alleged disclosure, including the context, the Court 

cannot determine whether Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff will be given 

one final opportunity to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

B. Right to 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 

Case 1:16-cv-01223-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

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

(quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22). Thus, to avoid liability, Defendant’s decision 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 the 

decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323.

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim. At best, Plaintiff has alleged that he 

complained of chest pains, but he has not identified any resulting harm or consequences resulting 

from the pain or from Defendant Kaur’s purported failure to take his vitals. In the absence of 

any such allegations, Defendant Kaur’s conduct appears to be supported by a professional 

judgment that Plaintiff did not require any treatment. The absence of any apparent consequence 

or harm also suggests that Plaintiff was treated within accepted standards. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. As Plaintiff is 

proceeding pro se, he will be given a final opportunity to amend his complaint to the extent that 

he can do so in good faith. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). 

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

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints). 

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

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations 

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220.

Case 1:16-cv-01223-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 12/20/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted;

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

amended complaint; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01223-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 12/20/16 Page 5 of 5