Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00192/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00192-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIER ADRIAN ENRIQUEZ, JR.

Plaintiff,

 v.

S. POSSON, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-0192 MEJ (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Javier Adrian Enriquez, Jr., a California state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate

order. Based upon a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, it is dismissed

with leave to amend.

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). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which 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. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 9 Filed 04/21/15 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

upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . .

a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible

on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the portion

of the form complaint where a plaintiff is instructed to provide a statement of his claim,

Enriquez directs the Court to review his inmate appeals. Attached to his complaint are copies

of Enriquez’s inmate appeals pertaining to medical services he requested to address colon

problems. Enriquez’s attachment of these documents indicates that he may want to complain

about his medical care at SVSP, but the text of the complaint does not provide enough details

for the Court to determine whether any of his constitutional rights may have been violated

and whether any defendants may be liable. The Court will not read through exhibits to

attempt to piece together a claim for a plaintiff. It is a plaintiff’s duty to provide a statement

that is a complete statement of his claims against each of the defendants. Below, the Court

provides the basic law relevant to claims about medical care for Enriquez’s consideration in

preparing his amended complaint. 

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment requires that

prison officials take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of inmates. 

See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A prison official violates the Eighth

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 9 Filed 04/21/15 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

Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively,

sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the

inmate’s safety. See id. at 834. Neither negligence nor gross negligence is actionable under

§ 1983 in the prison context. See id. at 835-36 & n.4. The defendant must not only “be

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

harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If the defendant should have been

aware of the risk, but was not, then he has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter

how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

If Enriquez wishes to assert a claim for relief based on his medical care, he must

allege facts that would show that he had a serious medical need and that defendants

responded with deliberate indifference to it. A serious medical need may exist if the “failure

to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and

wanton infliction of pain.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For the subjective, or “deliberate

indifference” prong, the plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a

prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

In his amended complaint, Enriquez must be careful to allege facts showing the basis

for liability for each defendant. He should not refer to them as a group (e.g., “the

defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each of

them to his claim by explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do that caused

a violation of his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff is

cautioned that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e. no liability under the

theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. Liability under 

§ 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a

showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient

causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 9 Filed 04/21/15 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

violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2011). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

2. If Plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he shall file an

AMENDED COMPLAINT within twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is filed. 

The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C

15-0192 MEJ (PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to

file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. “[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which

are not alleged in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by

reference. Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

4. 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,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

Maria-Elena James

United States Magistrate Judge

April 21, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-00192-VC Document 9 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 4