Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00255/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00255-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY R. PRICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00255-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM, WITH ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY

TO AMEND

(Doc. 10)

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Standard

Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Price (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

March 7, 2006. On July 23, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend,

for failure to state a claim. On August 27, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00255-FRZ Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may

dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that

could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff

will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the

claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and

unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171

(9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . .

.’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal

pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply

essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.

1982)).

B. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim

Plaintiff is an inmate housed at a jail in Modesto, where the events at issue in this action

are allegedly occurring. Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief from the California

Forensic Medical Group, which is a medical contractor for the Stanislaus County Jail, and the

supervising doctor and nurse at the jail. Plaintiff’s claim arises from the alleged failure to

provide him with medication previously prescribed for his medical problems, in violation of his

rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Case 1:06-cv-00255-FRZ Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 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

3

 To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

prison conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v.

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise

to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the

prisoner of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official

‘acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th

Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A

prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

(1994). Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment,” or in the manner “in which prison physicians

provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on

other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

1. California Forensic Medical Group

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted

under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution

or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally,

private parties are not acting under color of state law. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee

Secondary School Athletic Assoc., 531 U.S. 288, 295, 121 S.Ct. 924, 930 (2001); Single Moms,

Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 331 F.3d 743, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2003); Sutton v. Providence St.

Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999); Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th

Cir. 1991). However, private parties under contract with the government may be held liable

under section 1983. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assoc., 531

U.S. 288, 295-96, 121 S.Ct. 924, 930 (2001). In light of notice pleading standards, plaintiff’s

allegation that the California Forensic Medical Group is a medical contractor at the jail is

sufficient allow plaintiff to bring suit under section 1983 against it as if it is a local government

unit.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00255-FRZ Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 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

4

However, as plaintiff was previously informed, a local government unit may not be held

responsible for the acts of its employees under a respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell

v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158,

1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Rather, a local government unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury complained of. 

Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185. 

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the ‘moving force’

behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652,

667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Alternatively,

and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local government

unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson at 1186. Under this

route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s deliberate

indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit the

constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the municipality

was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional

violation.” Id.

In this instance, plaintiff’s claim is based on the failure of jail staff members to issue him

medication that was previously prescribed for migraines and degenerative disk and joint disease. 

Although “[a] difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities

regarding treatment does not give rise to a s 1983 claim, ” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337,

1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted), the alleged failure to provide plaintiff with any

medical treatment for his condition, which has caused plaintiff to unnecessarily endure severe

pain, is sufficient to provide a basis upon which to impose liability under section 1983. 

However, the amended complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a claim against the California

Forensic Medical Group under a theory of municipal liability. Plaintiff must either allege facts

sufficient to support a municipal liability claim against the California Forensic Medical Group or 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00255-FRZ Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 4 of 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

5

name the individuals who are directly responsible for denying him medical treatment and causing

him to suffer in pain. 

2. Supervising Doctor and Nurse

In addition to the California Forensic Medical Group, plaintiff names the unidentified

supervising doctor and nurse. Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. When the named defendant

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between the defendant and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). To state a claim for relief under section 1983 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must

allege some facts indicating that the defendant either: personally participated in the alleged

deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or

promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of

constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black,

885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that the supervising doctor and nurse

personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations

and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the

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

constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black at 646. Accordingly, plaintiff’s allegations fall short

of what is necessary to give rise to a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against either

individual. 

C. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not state a claim upon which

relief may be granted under section 1983. The court will provide plaintiff with one final

opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified by the court in this order.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00255-FRZ Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 5 of 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

6

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each

named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

An amended complaint supercedes 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 superceded pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. 

Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll 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.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

second amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order,

the court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 5, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

9b0h UNI ie TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00255-FRZ Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 6 of 6