Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00886/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00886-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

JON L. NYLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S JAIL,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00886 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jon L. Nyland (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 11, 

2015.

1

 He names the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Jail as Defendant. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

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

 

1 On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 1:15-cv-00886-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 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

2

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 conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently detained at Calaveras County Jail pending trial on unidentified charges. 

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff claims he suffers from several mental illnesses of 

which the county is aware. He states he was booked into jail on May 13, 2015, and he immediately 

requested mental health services. As of June 7, 2015, he still has not been treated. He states that as 

a result, he has suffered greatly and has not been able to properly defend himself in his criminal case. 

He further claims he has been mistreated in retaliation for his requests for help.

Plaintiff is seeking to be moved from Calaveras County Jail and tried elsewhere. He requests 

Case 1:15-cv-00886-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 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

3

that the Court declare that the county caused him harm. He seeks damages in the amount of 

$25,000.00. Last, he asks that his criminal case be vacated as a result of the abuse he has suffered.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Plaintiff names the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Jail as Defendant. However, the Eleventh 

Amendment erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought against the state. Wolfson v. 

Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). While 

“[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against a state official for prospective relief,” 

Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1065-66, suits against the state or its agencies are barred absolutely, regardless 

of the form of relief sought, e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 

104 S.Ct. 900 (1984); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Medical Examiners, 678 F.3d 737, 740 n.1 (9th 

Cir. 2012). Thus, Plaintiff may not maintain a claim against the County’s detention facility.

2. Conditions of Confinement – Medical Care

In cases of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a pretrial detainee’s rights are 

analyzed under the Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, while a convicted prisoner’s rights 

are analyzed under the Eighth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-36 (1979); Simmons 

v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2010); Clouthier v. County of Contra 

Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1244 (9th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, the standard for claims brought under the 

Eighth Amendment has long been used to analyze pretrial detainees’ conditions of confinement 

claims. Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1017-18; Clouthier, 591 F.3d at 1242; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 

1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference 

to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), 

overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat 

[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

Case 1:15-cv-00886-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 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

4

pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Deliberate indifference is shown by 

“(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm 

caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The 

requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of 

due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that any Defendant acted with the requisite state of 

mind. Plaintiff contends that he submitted requests for mental health care, but he does not allege 

how any Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Ordinary lack of 

due care, or even gross negligence, does not constitute deliberate indifference.

Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a deliberate indifference claim against any Defendant.

3. Retaliation

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be 

free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Also protected by the First Amendment is 

the right to pursue civil rights litigation in federal court without retaliation. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 

F.3d 1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) 

chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).

Here, Plaintiff vaguely states that he has been mistreated in retaliation for asking for help. 

This is insufficient to state a claim of retaliation. Plaintiff fails to identify a state actor; he fails to 

show that any Defendant acted with retaliatory motive; he fails to show that his First Amendment 

rights were chilled; and he fails to demonstrate that the action did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

Case 1:15-cv-00886-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 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

5

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

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 federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 

(2012). 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, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

amended complaint; and

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

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00886-GSA Document 13 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 5