Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00921-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on January 7, 

2015. Local Rule 302.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed January 23, 2015.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, if 

the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONIA OKPALA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00921-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 

UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

[ECF No. 9

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 5
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

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, 

but A[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 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts Aare 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). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt 

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff=s claims must be facially plausible to survive 

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a 

defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of 

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d 

at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Since May 2014, Plaintiff has made multiple attempts to get Defendant Okpala to set an 

appointment to see the unit doctor at Coalinga State Hospital. Each and every time Plaintiff has 

requested an appointment, Defendant states that she would make the appointment and each following 

day Plaintiff is replaced by a different patient based on priority. Plaintiff contends that Defendant 

denied him medical attention based on racial discrimination in prioritizing patients in need of medical 

care based on their race. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 5
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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Denial of Medical Attention

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to treatment more considerate than that afforded pretrial 

detainees or convicted criminals. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s 

right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the substantive component 

of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982). 

A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing of his liberty 

interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. Plaintiff is “entitled to 

more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires only that courts ensure that 

professional judgment was exercised. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22. A “decision, if made by a 

professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision by the 

professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or 

standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a 

judgment.” Id. at 322-23; compare Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243-44 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (rejecting the Youngberg standard and applying the deliberate indifference standard to a 

pretrial detainee’s right to medical care, and noting that pretrial detainees, who are confined to ensure 

presence at trial, are not similarly situated to those civilly committed). The professional judgment 

standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that required in ordinary tort cases for a finding of 

conscious indifference amounting to gross negligence.” Ammons v. Washington Dep’t of Soc. & 

Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Okpala failed to set up an appointment with a doctor by 

engaging in racial discrimination by the prioritization of the patients. Although Plaintiff contends that 

Defendant Okpala improperly prioritized detainees medical attention based on their race, Plaintiff’s 

allegations are insufficient to determine if Plaintiff’s claim is plausible. Plaintiff’s claim is nothing 

more than a legal conclusory assertion that Defendant Okpala’s actions were motivated by racial 

discrimination and not based on a legitimate medical explanation. Plaintiff does not indicate the 

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 5
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

specific factual circumstances surrounding his request and Defendant’s denial of medical attention, 

and without such information the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff states a plausible claim for 

relief. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “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.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .

. .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All 

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 23, 2015, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 5
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

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00921-LJO-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/29/15 Page 5 of 5