Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01025-6/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

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JESSICA C., et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-01025-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

(ECF No. 15)

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 30, 2014, and consented 

to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 1, 5.) On January 28, 2015, 

the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. On February 

13, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend within 

thirty days. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on February 23, 2015, is currently 

before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Screening Requirement

“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 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01025-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 4
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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 

L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must 

set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Allegations in Complaint

Plaintiff is housed at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”), where the events in the complaint 

are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Jessica C. as a defendant in the caption of the 

complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

ABOUT THREE YEARS PASSED I was awakened from a sound sleep with 

seveare chest paines that was brought on by being assalted in the chest by several 

outher patients at the start of the grave yard shift the vvverry same shift that the 

defendants where assined to work in eneyeveant plaintiff got up out of his bed 

seekingmedical help for exstreemly possable hart a tack only plaintiff could not 

locate a soul to reander medical care as was the job that was assinged to perform 

now according to the standard of the 1983 U.S.C. plaintiff is to present a 

complaint where reliff can be reandered now the hosoittal superviseing staff gave 

the job or reandering or giving medical care there selves of which bouth could 

have been done by all defendantd of which all failed to comply thus failuer to 

provide prompt profeshent medical care as stated in the above intitled matter is a 

matter where reliff can be reandered. 

(ECF No. 13, p. 1) (unedited text). 

III. Discussion

A. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every 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 ... shall be liable to the party 

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between 

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See

Case 1:14-cv-01025-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611; Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[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).

Here, Plaintiff fails to link (or name) defendants to the allegations in his complaint. 

Plaintiff merely lumps all unidentified defendants together. Despite being provided with the 

relevant linkage requirement, Plaintiff has been unable to cure this deficiency. 

B. Due Process -Medical Care

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff’s rights to medical care and personal safety are protected by 

the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Youngberg 

v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982). Under this provision of the Constitution, Plaintiff is 

“entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose 

conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931 (9th Cir. 

2004) (quoting Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22); cf. Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 

F.3d 1232, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 2010) (pretrial detainees, who are confined to ensure their presence 

at trial, are afforded only those protections provided by the Eighth Amendment). Thus, to avoid 

liability, Defendants’ decisions must be supported by “professional judgment.” Youngberg, 457 

U.S. at 323. A defendant fails to use professional judgment when his or her decision is “such a 

substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to 

demonstrate that [he or she] did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. 

at 323.

Plaintiff has not stated a claim for violation of the substantive component of the Due 

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment related to medical care. At best, Plaintiff has 

alleged that he attempted to inform some unidentified defendants of his chest pain. However, 

there is no indication that Plaintiff suffered a heart attack or any other resulting harm or damage

from Plaintiff’s failure to locate any defendants on a single occasion. Therefore, Plaintiff has not 

Case 1:14-cv-01025-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 4
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

alleged that the failure to render care by some unidentified defendants was unsupported by 

professional judgment. Despite being provided with the relevant legal standard, Plaintiff has 

been unable to cure this deficiency.

C. Supervisory Liability 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to impose liability against unidentified supervisory 

personnel, he may not do so. Supervisory personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 

for the actions of subordinate employees based on respondeat superior or vicarious liability. 

Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep't of 

Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 

896, 915–16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “A supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is 

personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection 

between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d 

at 977 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074–75; Lacey, 693 F.3d 

at 915–16. “Under the latter theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt personal 

participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the 

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional 

violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989)) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint fails state a claim for which relief may be 

granted against any defendant. Despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiff has been unable to cure 

the deficiencies in his complaint. Further leave to amend is not warranted. See Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is HEREBY 

DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim. All pending motions, if any, are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01025-BAM Document 16 Filed 03/03/15 Page 4 of 4