Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01010/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01010-3/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

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 CRANDFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEXANDRA PULLION, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

(ECF NO. 8)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 5, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a 

claim but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) His first amended complaint is before the 

Court for screening.

I. Screening Requirement

The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any 

portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if 

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 11 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 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

2

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).

II. Pleading Standard

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state 

law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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 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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.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. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is detained at Coalinga State Hospital, where the acts giving rise to his 

complaint occurred. He names Alexandra Pullion as the sole defendant in this action. His 

allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 11 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 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

3

On July 10, 2016, Plaintiff experienced chest pain. He approached Defendant 

regarding his pain and Defendant refused to provide immediate treatment.1 According to 

Plaintiff, the denial of treatment was a violation of policy or regulations requiring him to 

be immediately treated unless another patient is in cardiac or respiratory arrest.

Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief.

IV. Analysis

The Fourteenth Amendment provides the standard for evaluating the 

constitutionally protected interests of individuals who have been involuntarily committed 

to a state facility. Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed. Appx. 148, 150–51 (3d Cir. 2007); see

Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 312 (1982). Such individuals are “entitled to more 

considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22. In determining 

whether the constitutional rights of an involuntarily committed individual have been 

violated, the court must balance the individual’s liberty interests against the relevant 

state interests, with deference shown to the judgment exercised by qualified 

professionals. Id. at 320-22. 

 

1 Plaintiff regularly files suit alleging that staff at CSH failed to treat his chest pain. 

E.g., Cranford v. Adams, No. 1:14-cv-0252-JLT (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2014); Cranford v. 

Estrellado, No. 1:07-cv-1829-OWW-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010); Cranford v. 

Nickels, No. 1:07-cv-1812-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2011) (collecting cases); 

Cranford v. Perryman, No. 1:13-cv-0763-BAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014). These actions 

were decided adversely to Plaintiff. In Cranford v. Crawford, No. 1:14-cv-0055 (PC) 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2016), this Court issued findings and a recommendation that Plaintiff 

be found a vexatious litigant. Because that recommendation is pending before the 

District Court, the Court here screens the instant complaint under the 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) criteria.

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 11 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 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

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. 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. Wash. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (citations and emphasis omitted).

Plaintiff does not allege facts to show that Defendant failed to exercise 

professional judgment. Nor does he allege that any departure from professional 

judgment caused him harm.2 He does not show that the failure to provide immediate 

treatment was a “substantial departure from accepted professional judgment” under the 

circumstances presented to Defendant.

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to establish liability based on Defendants’ violation 

of an institutional policy or California regulations, he fails to state a claim. Plaintiff fails to 

provide authority for the existence of a private right of action under either authority. See

Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283-86 (2002) (basing a claim on an implied 

private right of action requires a showing that the statute both contains explicit rightscreating terms and manifests an intent to create a private remedy); Davis v. Powell, 901 

F.Supp.2d 1196, 1211 (S.D.Cal. 2012) (no implied private right of action for violation of 

Title 15 prison regulations). Furthermore, any such claims arise under state law and are 

not properly before this Court absent a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); 

Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001).

V. Conclusion and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief. He 

previously was advised of pleading deficiencies and afforded the opportunity to correct 

 

2

A the Court previously noted, Plaintiff stated in his initial complaint that his chest pain resolved on its 

own without medical intervention. (ECF No. 7.)

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 11 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 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

5

them. He failed to do so. Any further leave to amend reasonably appears futile and 

should be denied. 

The undersigned recommends that the action be dismissed with prejudice and 

that the Clerk of the Court terminate any and all pending motions and close the case. 

The findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with the findings and recommendation, the 

parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” A party may respond 

to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen (14) days after being 

served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 11 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 5