Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04251/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04251-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 07-4251 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 20, 2007, plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Santa Clara County Jail

(“County Jail”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983; he alleges he is receiving inadequate medical care. By separate order filed

concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

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

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

dismiss any claims that 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. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 7 Filed 12/12/07 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

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

B. Claims

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges he was first incarcerated at the County Jail on

December 13, 2006, and that from that date forward, he has been “continuously” requesting

medical attention for liver problems and a pre-cancerous growth on his gall bladder. (Compl.

at 3:12-17.) Plaintiff states he was taken to an outside hospital for an ultrasound on July 31,

2007, at which time “more growth” was found in the area of his liver. (Compl. at 3:17-20.) 

He claims the County Jail’s medical department “is extremely below standards of ethics,”

and that the only way he can receive relief from “this deliberate indifference” is for the Court

to order he be provided with outside medical treatment. (Compl. at 3:20-4:3.) 

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an

examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of

the defendant’s response to that need. 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). A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s

condition could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction

of pain.” Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). A prison official is deliberately

indifferent if he knows a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that

risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994). 

Here, liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint alleges he is suffering from a serious

medical need. Plaintiff does not, however, allege facts that show jail officials have acted

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 7 Filed 12/12/07 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

with deliberate indifference to his serious medical need. Specifically, he does not describe

the particular medical treatment he is seeking or how jail officials have responded to his

requests. Consequently, the Court cannot discern whether jail officials have acted in a

manner that implicates plaintiff’s constitutional right to medical care. Plaintiff will be given

leave to amend the complaint to describe the current nature of his medical condition, his

requests for medical care, and the jail officials’ responses, if any, to such requests. 

Moreover, plaintiff has not named any jail official as a defendant, nor has he alleged

how any such individual official was involved in responding, or failing to respond, to his

requests for medical attention. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s conduct that proximately caused a violation of

his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the only defendant

named in the complaint is “Santa Clara County Department of Corrections Medical

Department.” Naming any such department as a whole does not suffice to plead a § 1983

claim, however, because only those individual department members who actually engage in

unlawful conduct can be held liable. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690

(1978) (rejecting concept of respondeat superior liability in § 1983 context and requiring

individual liability for constitutional violation); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989) (holding personal participation required for finding of supervisorial liability based on

alleged constitutional violations); see also Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir.

1996) (holding instruction permitting jury to find individual liable as member of team,

without any showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper). Plaintiff will be given leave to

amend the complaint to identify the jail officials involved in the alleged failure to provide

him adequate care, and to set forth specific facts showing how each such defendant’s actions

have caused him injury or harm.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30)

days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT, using

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 7 Filed 12/12/07 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

the court’s form civil rights complaint, in order to cure the deficiencies noted above. 

Plaintiff shall complete the form, and include in the caption both the case number of this

action, No. C 07-4251 MMC (PR), and the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to include new claims and

new defendants, he must file an amended complaint, which amended complaint also must

include any claims from the original complaint he wishes to preserve. 

If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the

action will be dismissed.

2. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any 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, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 7 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 4