Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01168/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01168-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRANDON M. TRAMMELL, 

Booking No. 17163702, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

SHERIFF WILLIAM D. GORE; GBDF 

Faculty 8; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; 

SAN DIEGO SHERIFFS DEP’T; DOES 

1-3 MEDICAL STAFF, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

 

I. Procedural History 

On June 4, 2018, Brandon M. Trammell (“Plaintiff”), currently housed at the 

George Bailey Detention Facility (“GBDF”) located in San Diego, California, and 

proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 

Doc. No. 1 at 1. 

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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

 Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the 

time of filing; instead he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Doc. No. 2). 

 On June 12, 2018, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua 

sponte DISMISSED his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief 

could be granted. See Doc. No. 3 at 7-8. Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended 

pleading in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s Order. 

See id. at 8. On July 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 

(Doc. No. 4).

II. Initial Screening per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) 

 A. Standard of Review 

As the Court previously informed Plaintiff, because Plaintiff is a prisoner and is 

proceeding IFP, his pleadings requires a pre-answer screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a 

prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state 

a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)). “The purpose of [screening] is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or 

malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 

903, 920 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 

680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)). 

“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 

applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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

12(b)(6)”). Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1121. 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its 

judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere possibility of misconduct” or 

“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation[s]” fall short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009). 

B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 

In January of 2018, while Plaintiff was housed at GBDF, he was “trying to get” 

into his bed when he slipped and fell against the desk in his cell causing a “cut” to his leg. 

(FAC at 3-4.) Plaintiff informed an unnamed Sheriff Deputy who “allowed [Plaintiff] to 

shower.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff took a shower but claims that the cleanliness of the shower 

“does not live up to health and safety codes.” (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff claims he 

developed a “flesh eating infection” from “either the shower or from the desk.” (Id.) 

 At some point, Plaintiff was examined by a GBDF nurse who “took [his] vitals” 

and found he had a high fever. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that unnamed officials took 

him to an “observation room” where he “passed out due to the infection spreading.” (Id.) 

At some point, Plaintiff was taken to the hospital where he was given “emergency 

surgery.” (Id.) Plaintiff seeks three (3) million in compensatory and punitive damages, 

along with two (2) million for “mental anguish.” (Id. at 8.) 

C. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Section 1983 is a “vehicle by which plaintiffs can bring federal constitutional and 

statutory challenges to actions by state and local officials.” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 

1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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

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 violation was committed by a person 

acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Naffe v. Frye, 

789 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015). 

D. Improper Defendant 

As an initial matter, the Court finds that to the extent Plaintiff includes the San Diego 

Sheriff’s Department as a Defendant, his claims must be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 

both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim upon 

which § 1983 relief can be granted. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Rhodes, 621 F.3d at 1004. 

A local law enforcement department (like the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department or 

its Jail) is not a proper defendant under § 1983. See Vance v. County of Santa Clara, 928 

F. Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“Naming a municipal department as a defendant is not 

an appropriate means of pleading a § 1983 action against a municipality.”) (citation 

omitted); Powell v. Cook County Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (“Section 

1983 imposes liability on any ‘person’ who violates someone’s constitutional rights ‘under 

color of law.’ Cook County Jail is not a ‘person.’”). 

E. Municipal Liability 

To the extent Plaintiff intends to assert a claim against the County of San Diego 

itself, his allegations are insufficient. A municipal entity is liable under section 1983 only 

if plaintiff shows that his constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to 

the municipality’s policy or custom. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 

U.S. 274, 280 (1977); Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 

(1978); Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008). Local 

government entities may not be held vicariously liable under section 1983 for the 

unconstitutional acts of its employees under a theory of respondeat superior. See Board of 

Cty. Comm’rs. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). 

Plaintiff claims it is the County’s “fault for lack of cleanliness” and insufficient 

“health inspections.” (FAC at 5.) These claims raise issues of negligence but fail to 

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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

identify any specific policy generated by the County of San Diego that resulted in 

Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 

F. Respondeat Superior 

In addition, Plaintiff names Sheriff William Gore as a Defendant in his individual 

capacity but provides no factual allegations as to this Defendant. As a result, Plaintiff 

fails to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief can be granted because he sets forth no 

individualized allegations of wrongdoing by Sheriff Gore, and instead seeks to hold him 

vicariously liable for the actions of his deputies and medical staff. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

676 (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits,” Plaintiff “must 

plead that each Government-official defendant, though the official’s own individual 

actions, has violated the Constitution.”) 

Plaintiff’s FAC contains no factual allegations describing what Defendant Sheriff 

Gore knew, did, or failed to do, with regard to Plaintiff’s needs. Estate of Brooks v. 

United States, 197 F.3d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Causation is, of course, a required 

element of a § 1983 claim.”) “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), citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976); Berg 

v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Thus, without some specific “factual content” that might allow the Court to “draw 

the reasonable inference” that Sheriff Gore may be held personally liable for any 

unconstitutional conduct directed at Plaintiff, the Court finds his FAC, as currently 

pleaded, contains allegations which Iqbal makes clear fail to “state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 568. 

G. Inadequate Medical Care 

Prison officials are liable only if they are deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s 

serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976); see also Clouthier 

v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241-44 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying Estelle’s

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard to inadequate medical care claims 

alleged to violate a pretrial detainees’ due process rights), overruled on other grounds by 

Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Here, Plaintiff does claim to have suffered injuries that demonstrates that his 

medical needs may be objectively serious. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 

(9th Cir. 1991) (defining a “serious medical need” as one which the “failure to treat ... 

could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain.’”), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“[A] 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The “existence 

of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of 

comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 

individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples 

of indications that a prisoner has a ‘serious’ need for medical treatment.” McGuckin, 974 

F.3d at 1059-60. 

Even if the Court assumes Plaintiff’s medical needs were “objectively serious” 

medical conditions, nothing in his FAC supports a “reasonable inference that [any 

individual] defendant” acted with deliberate indifference to his plight. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. “In order to show deliberate indifference, an inmate must allege sufficient facts to 

indicate that prison officials acted with a culpable state of mind.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 

U.S. 294, 302 (1991). The indifference to medical needs also must be substantial; 

inadequate treatment due to malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not amount to a 

constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 

(9th Cir. 2004) (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.”) (citing Hallett v. 

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 1204 (9th Cir. 2002); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 

(9th Cir. 1990)). A difference of opinion between a pretrial detainee and the doctors or 

other trained medical personnel at the Jail as to the appropriate course or type of medical 

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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

attention he requires does not amount to deliberate indifference, see Snow v. McDaniel, 

681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 

1989)), and any delay in providing an appropriate course of treatment does not by itself 

show deliberate indifference, unless the delay is alleged have caused harm. See 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 

404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Here, Plaintiff alleges he was examined by GBDF staff and found to have a fever. 

See FAC at 4. He was placed in an “observation room” and a “culture” was taken from 

his wound. (Id.) Ultimately, he was transferred to an outside hospital. (Id.) However, 

Plaintiff alleges no facts that any medical personnel at GBDF acted in “deliberate 

indifference” to his serious medical needs. Instead, he alleges that he disagrees with 

how they treated him for his medical condition which is insufficient to state a claim. See

Snow, 681 F.3d at 987. Without more, Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claims 

currently amount only to “unadorned, the defendant[s]-unlawfully-harmed-me 

accusation[s],” which “stop[] short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 

‘entitlement to relief’” as to any constitutionally inadequate medical care claim. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). 

H. Leave to Amend 

A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his pleading to state a claim unless 

it is absolutely clear the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d 

at 1130 (noting leave to amend should be granted when a complaint is dismissed under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect”). 

Therefore, while the Court finds Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted, it will provide him a chance to fix the pleading deficiencies discussed in 

this Order, if he can. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

/ / / 

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8 

3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC 

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. Conclusion and Order 

For all the reasons discussed, the Court: 

1. DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983

relief can granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) & 1915A; 

2. GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave to file an Amended Complaint 

which cures all the deficiencies of pleading described in this Order. Plaintiff is cautioned, 

however, that should he choose to file an Amended Complaint, it must be complete by 

itself, comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and that any claim not realleged will be considered waived. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. 

Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended 

pleading supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 

2012) (noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an 

amended pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”). 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a court approved form civil 

rights complaint for his use in amending. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 25, 2018 

Case 3:18-cv-01168-GPC-KSC Document 5 Filed 10/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8