Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00887-2/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

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

PAUL A. MARTINEZ,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CALAVERAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

JAIL, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00887-EPG-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Paul A. Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on June 11, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) In Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he is 

not receiving mental health care from the Calaveras County Jail.

On June 18, 2015, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 4.) 

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

This Court has screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds that the facts alleged are not 

sufficient to state a cognizable constitutional claim as to any defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint 

does not describe Plaintiff’s condition in a way for the Court to determine that Plaintiff has a 

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 8
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

serious medical condition. Plaintiff does not describe the care he needs and how it would assist 

that medical condition. Plaintiff also does not describe what individuals did or said at the jail in 

a way that allows the Court to determine if the reason defendants failed to provide the care was 

because of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Indeed, Plaintiff does 

not describe how the defendants are connected to his claim. While Plaintiff’s allegations are 

troubling, even if they are true they do they do not show a violation of the constitution.

This order provides an explanation of the relevant law to inform Plaintiff should he 

decide to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint attempting to 

state a claim within thirty days from the date of service of this order. 

II. 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 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 is required to 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are 

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 8
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

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. 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. Id. 

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that while at Calaveras County Jail, he asked for help many times for 

his sleep disorder and was refused help for five months. He lists many dates that he asked for 

help. He asks for an apology and also for his release to mental health care with no probation in 

order to get the help he has been asking for. 

Although Plaintiff states that he requested treatment for sleep disorder, he also lists 

other disorders including bipolar disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance 

use disorder, poly substance dependence; substance induced psychotic disorder, personality 

disorder, anti-social personality disorder. It is not clear if he requested help for these disorders 

as well.

Plaintiff also states that he was told he would have to have 80 dollars in his books in 

order to get certain help.

IV. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

A. Legal Standards

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state 

law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 

meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, 

or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of 

which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “In a § 1983

action, the plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the actionable 

cause of the claimed injury. To meet this causation requirement, the plaintiff must establish 

both causation-in-fact and proximate causation.” Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 8
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

(9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Proximate cause requires “‘some direct relation 

between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.”’ Hemi Group, LLC v. City of 

New York, 559 U.S. 1, 130 (2010) (quoting Holmes v. Secs. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 

258, 268 (1992)).

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate mental health care, 

Plaintiff must allege facts showing defendants acted with deliberate indifference to serious 

mental health needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 

F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994) (“deliberate indifference” standard also applies in cases involving 

the adequacy of mental health care in prisons). In the Ninth Circuit, a deliberate indifference

claim has two components:

First, the plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that 

“failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or 

the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Second, the plaintiff must 

show the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent. This 

second prong – defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent – is 

satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain 

or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference. Indifference

“may appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with 

medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians 

provide medical care.” (internal citations omitted)

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). See also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 

1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To demonstrate that a prison official was deliberately indifferent

to an inmate’s serious mental health needs, the prisoner must show that ‘the official [knew] of 

and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate health’.”) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 838 (1994)). 

Plaintiff is cautioned that, in applying the deliberate indifference standard, the Ninth 

Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner's civil rights have been abridged, “the 

indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or 

‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 

458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). In addition, mere differences of 

opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to the proper course of treatment for a 

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 4 of 8
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

medical condition do not give rise to a § 1983 claim. See Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 988 

(9th Cir. 2012); Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson 

v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 

1989); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

Finally, delays in providing medical care may manifest deliberate indifference. See

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. To establish a deliberate indifference claim arising from a delay in 

providing medical care, however, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the delay was 

harmful. See Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994); Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 

F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 

407 (9th Cir. 1985). In this regard, “[a] prisoner need not show his harm was substantial; 

however, such would provide additional support for the inmate's claim that the defendant was 

deliberately indifferent to his needs.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

The Court notes that the legal standard for deliberate indifference is somewhat different 

for pretrial detainees (as opposed to a prisoner who has already been convicted). “Inmates who 

sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so under the Eighth 

Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the 

Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.” Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. 12-56829, 

2016 WL 4268955, at *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016). “[U]nder the Eighth Amendment, a prison 

official cannot be found liable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause Unusual 

Punishment Clause for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement ‘unless the 

official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must 

both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 

serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.’ Id. at *4 (quoting Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)). Under the Fourteenth 

Amendment, courts look to see whether the defendant’s conduct is “objectively unreasonable.” 

Id. at *7.

B. Analysis of Plaintiff’s Claims in Light of Legal Standards

Plaintiff alleges that he asked for help for a sleep disorder and was not given care. 

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 5 of 8
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

While certainly troubling, this allegation alone is not sufficient to state a claim for a violation 

of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the law cited above.

Plaintiff does not allege enough about his sleep disorder to assess whether he has a 

serious medical need. If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he should explain what the 

sleep disorder causes him to experience (or experienced), as well as the effects of the sleep 

disorder.

Plaintiff also does not describe what care he required and how failing to get that care 

resulted in medical harm. In other words, what help did he request and how did the failure to 

get that help cause Plaintiff harm. Plaintiff does not describe an available treatment that would 

have helped his sleep disorder. 

Plaintiff also does not describe what each individual defendant did in connection with 

denying him care. Plaintiff lists a number of individuals without any description of what they 

did or failed to do that violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Finally, Plaintiff does not describe facts indicating that the individuals failed to act 

because they knew of a serious risk to Plaintiff’s health and intentionally disregarded that risk. 

The Court cannot determine based on the facts that are alleged now whether Plaintiff is 

complaining of a situation of negligence or medical malpractice, rather than constitutional 

deliberate indifference as described in the law cited above.

The Court is sympathetic to the difficulties Plaintiff is facing, and the frustrations of 

asking for help and not receiving it. That said, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide sufficient 

facts for the Court to find that, if all Plaintiff says is true, Plaintiff has suffered a violation of 

his Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights.1

V. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Complaint fails to state any cognizable claim upon 

which relief may be granted under ' 1983. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

 

1

Plaintiff has not specified whether he has already been convicted or whether he is a pretrial 

detainee, so it is impossible for the Court to determine which standard should apply. However, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint fails under both standards.

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 6 of 8
7

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

Procedure, “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the 

Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies 

identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted 

leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of this order if he 

chooses to do so.

The amended complaint must allege constitutional violations under the law as discussed 

above. Specifically, Plaintiff must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat 

superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676. Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health or safety, 

which is sufficiently serious. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 

for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes 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 superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

Plaintiff is further advised that if he chooses to file an amended complaint he should 

specify whether he is a pretrial detainee or if he has already been convicted.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified 

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

by the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual allegations would 

state a claim, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:15-cv-00887-EPG; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Court will 

dismiss the case for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a Court 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00887-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/03/16 Page 8 of 8