Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03762/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03762-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE R. ALVAREZ, JR., 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

MIKE KANALAKIS, Sheriff, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-3762 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Monterey County Jail, has filed a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on November 2, 2007 he

was attacked and stabbed 88 times because Deputy Cantu placed him in "I Pod,"

an active Norteño gang pod, despite knowing that plaintiff was a gang drop out. 

Plaintiff also alleges that medical staff more recently refused to see and treat him

for his nerve damage and chronic back pain. 

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

Case 3:09-cv-03762-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 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

1

Although pretrial detainees' claims arise under the Due Process Clause,

the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating those claims. See

Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees

provide minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees). 

2

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim 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. Legal Claims

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's safety needs violates the Eighth

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994). So does deliberate indifference to a

prisoner's serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

(1976). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner

faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take

reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.1

Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to amend to name individual

defendants and link them to his allegations of deliberate indifference to his safety

and serious medical needs. Plaintiff currently only names Sheriff Mike

Kanalakis and the "medical staff" as defendants in the caption of his complaint. 

He must name Deputy Cantu as a defendant in the caption of his complaint, as

well as the individual members of the medical staff who have been deliberately

Case 3:09-cv-03762-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 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 3

indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Barsten v. Dep't of the Interior, 896

F.2d 422, 423-24 (9th Cir. 1990). Specifically, plaintiff must name these

individual defendants and allege how each of them actually and proximately

caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844

F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Sheriff Kanalakis cannot be liable under § 1983

solely on the theory that he was responsible for the actions or omissions of his

employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend,

as indicated above, within 30 days of this order. The pleading must be simple

and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to

file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the

amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

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

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.09\Alvarez, J2.dwlta.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-03762-CRB Document 4 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 3