Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03146/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03146-0/pdf.json

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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Smith03146_dwlta.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLEMING SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. /

No. C 09-03146 JW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a California state inmate currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Corcoran, has filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

claims against San Quentin State Prison medical officials for unconstitutional acts. (Docket

No. 9.) The Court now reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or

any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

Case 5:09-cv-03146-JW Document 12 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 6
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Smith03146_dwlta.wpd 2

upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed,

however. 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

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. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that on or about January 23, 2008, while he was incarcerated at SQSP,

he was scheduled to receive a Hepatis A shot. (Compl. at 3 & 5.) The medical nurse

administering the shot stuck himself with a needle and then proceeded to give plaintiff the

Hep-A shot using the same needle. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that SQSP staff refused to

give the name of the medical staff member who gave him the shot or the give him an STD

test. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that this constitutes “unprofessional and unethical medical healthy

safety practice.” (Id. at 3.) 

This complaint is deficient for several reasons. First of all, plaintiff’s allegations,

when liberally construed, implicate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and

unusual punishment where defendants act with deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); 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); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.

1986). 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. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. However, plaintiff’s allegations are

insufficient to show that he was suffering a “serious” medical need which required medical

attention. 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.” 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). The existence of an injury that

Case 5:09-cv-03146-JW Document 12 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 6
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

1

 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. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633 (citations omitted).

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Smith03146_dwlta.wpd 3

a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the

presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or

the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a

“serious” need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d

1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff’s claim that his circumstance necessitates an STD

test is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation absent allegations that he is

suffering a “serious” medical need, e.g., that he has a medical condition that significantly

affects his daily activities or that he is suffering a chronic and substantial pain. Without a

serious medical need, it cannot be said that defendants acted with deliberate indifference in

allegedly ignoring plaintiff’s request for an STD test. 

Furthermore, plaintiff names as defendants the SQSP Medical Department (the

“Department”) along with John & Jane Does 1-100. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff must name

individual defendants upon whom the Court can issue service and serve all process. In

naming an intended defendant, plaintiff should keep in mind under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

liability may be imposed on an individual defendant if the plaintiff can show that the

defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125

(9th Cir. 1981). 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. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633.1

 If plaintiff fails to file an amended

complaint naming at least one individual defendant, the Court may have to dismiss the

complaint without prejudice to plaintiff later filing an action after he has ascertained the

identity of the intended defendant. 

With respect to the Department as defendant, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to

state a claim. To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to hold the Department responsible for

Case 5:09-cv-03146-JW Document 12 Filed 04/29/10 Page 3 of 6
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 They are absolutely immune from liability for punitive damages under § 1983,

however. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981).

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Smith03146_dwlta.wpd 4

the acts of its medical personnel, plaintiff’s claim must fail because under no circumstances

is there respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Or, in layman’s terms, under no

circumstances is there liability under section 1983 solely because one is responsible for the

actions or omissions of another. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989);

Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984).

Nevertheless, local governments are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see Monell v. Dep’t of

Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Local governing bodies therefore may be sued

directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory or injunctive relief for the violation of

federal rights. See id. at 690.2

 To impose municipal liability under § 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). 

Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to correct the

deficiencies discussed above. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above. 

Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in

this order and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page and write in the case

number for this action, Case No. C 09-03146 JW ( PR). Because an amended complaint

completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he

Case 5:09-cv-03146-JW Document 12 Filed 04/29/10 Page 4 of 6
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\CR.09\Smith03146_dwlta.wpd 5

wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff

may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 

2. 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.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

The clerk shall enclose a copy of the court’s form complaint with a copy of this order

to plaintiff. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

April 27, 2010 

Case 5:09-cv-03146-JW Document 12 Filed 04/29/10 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLEMING SMITH III,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CA,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-03146 JW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Fleming Smith P21021

CSATF/State Prison at Corcoran

P. O. Box 5242

Corcoran, Ca 95378-0600

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

4/29/2010 4/29/2010 /s/

Case 5:09-cv-03146-JW Document 12 Filed 04/29/10 Page 6 of 6