Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05937/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05937-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEAN PAUL STEPHENS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF MARIN, CHARLES

PRANDI and MICHAEL SMITH, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-5937 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket No. 2)

Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at the Marin County Jail in Marin County,

California, has filed this civil rights complaint regarding the conditions of his

confinement at the jail. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (docket

no. 2), which is DENIED as discussed below (docket no. 2). In this order the Court

reviews Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses the complaint

with leave to amend within thirty days. Plaintiff must also file a new in forma pauperis

application or pay the filing fee within thirty days of this order. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed a complaint which fails to provide any information regarding

the claims he wishes to pursue. The complaint form identifies the Defendants listed

above, but the body of the complaint offers no information regarding his claims, except

to identify it as a claim related to medical care. While Plaintiff informs the Court that we

may obtain medical records from his incarceration in state prison and his “claim filed

from Corcoran State Prison 1998 to March 14, 2000,” it is Plaintiff’s obligation to set

Case 3:06-cv-05937-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/20/07 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

forth sufficient facts to state a claim. As such, the Court now dismisses Plaintiff’s

complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of

this order. 

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 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).

II Legal Claims

 The complaint appears directed toward the failure of jail officials to adequately

address Plaintiff’s medical problems. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d

1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.

1986). A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's

response to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. 

Case 3:06-cv-05937-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/20/07 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

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id.

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). 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. See id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright,

900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)).

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable

steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In order for deliberate

indifference to be established, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part

of the defendant and resulting 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). However, in

his complaint, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any individuals or municipal

liability on the part of the County.

A complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant which violated the

plaintiff's rights fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982). 

District courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to correct

any deficiency in their complaints. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). In this case, Plaintiff has failed to state the specifics regarding the

mistreatment he suffered from any defendants, how his constitutional rights were

violated, whether he suffered any injury as a result, and the conduct of each defendant

that he asserts is responsible for a constitutional violation. As such, Plaintiff will be

granted leave to amend to allege specifics regarding any claims he has against each

Case 3:06-cv-05937-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/20/07 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

individually named and municipal defendant.

 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must establish legal liability of each person

for the claimed violation of his rights. Liability may be imposed on an individual

defendant under section 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately

caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A

person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he

does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442

(9th Cir. 1995) (prison official's failure to intervene to prevent 8th Amendment violation

may be basis for liability). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff

must instead "set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's" deprivation of

protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

With regard to the named municipal Defendants, Plaintiff has also failed to state a

claim. Local governments are "persons" subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

where official policy or custom causes a constitutional tort, see Monell v. Dep't of Social

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). However, a city or county may not be held vicariously

liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under the theory of respondeat

superior, see Board of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997); Monell, 436

U.S. at 691; Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir. 1995). To impose

municipal liability under § 1983 for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must

show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was

deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate

indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is the moving

force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of

Case 3:06-cv-05937-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/20/07 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

Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). In this case, Plaintiff has not properly

alleged liability on the part of the municipal Defendants. Plaintiff will be provided with

thirty days in which to amend to correct the deficiencies in his complaint. 

III. Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

At the commencement of this action, Plaintiff filed an incomplete application to

proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2). Plaintiff’s application did not include a

certificate of funds from his prisoner account filled out by an authorized officer of the

institution. However, in support of the application, Plaintiff attached a “Resident

Account Summary” from the Marin County Jail, which appears to document significant

deposits and a balance at times in excess of $1,000, which would provide Plaintiff with

sufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Therefore, Plaintiff’s application is DENIED

(docket no. 2) as incomplete. Given that Plaintiff no longer appears to be incarcerated,

he is ordered to either pay the $350 filing fee or to file a non-prisoner application to

proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days of the date of this order. Failure to do so

will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as indicated

above. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of this

order in which he asserts factual allegations against all Defendants named therein. The

amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

words “COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in dismissal of the complaint..

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

which are not alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644

Case 3:06-cv-05937-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/20/07 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

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no

longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Court’s

non-prisoner in forma pauperis application form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05937-JSW Document 6 Filed 02/20/07 Page 6 of 6