Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06266/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06266-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH N. LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN QUENTIN WARDEN,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-6266 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Joseph N. Livingston, currently an inmate at Avenal State Prison, filed a pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Livingston alleges the following about a medical problem that he claims

was not adequately addressed after he entered the California Department of Correction &

Rehabilitation ("CDCR") prison system. Livingston states that he fell three stories and was

hospitalized from May 3 - 28, 2006 at San Francisco General Hospital. His wrist was shattered

in the fall and he underwent several surgeries. His after-care included going to the orthopedic

clinic every 3-4 weeks to get x-rays to check on healing and for cast replacement. The last

orthopedic clinic appointment he went to was on July 21, 2006. He was scheduled for another

doctor's appointment on August 4, 2006, but apparently was arrested on July 22, 2006 and put

Case 3:06-cv-06266-SI Document 5 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

in the San Francisco County Jail. The sheriff's department rescheduled his doctor's appointment

to August 11, 2006 for security reasons. He did not make it to that appointment because officials

from the CDCR transported him to San Quentin State Prison on August 11. Upon his arrival at

San Quentin, he notified medical staff of his appointment. Since his arrival at San Quentin, he

had not "received any proper medical attention or treatment at all" (i.e., x-rays, blood test results

to determine if he had a bone infection, and cast replacement) through September 12, when he

wrote his complaint. Complaint, p. 4. 

The only defendant in the action is the San Quentin warden (whose is identified by title

but not by name). Livingston requests an injunction compelling medical attention to his wrist

as well as damages. After filing this action, Livingston was transferred to Avenal State Prison,

where he apparently now is housed. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint is deficient in that it does not have a proper defendant. The only defendant

is the warden, but there is no allegation that the warden had anything to do with Livingston's

medical care or lack thereof. The warden apparently has been sued on a respondeat superior

theory (i.e., because he is in charge of the prison and responsible for the acts and omissions of

Case 3:06-cv-06266-SI Document 5 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

his employees), but there is no respondeat superior liability in a § 1983 action. Liability under

Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the warden is dismissed from this

action. 

The court will grant leave to amend so that Livingston may file an amended complaint

in which he pleads a claim against individuals who actually participated in the alleged violation

of his constitutional rights. Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs violates

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

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-04 (1976). 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 measures to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844 (1994).

Livingston therefore must identify the particular person(s) at San Quentin who knew of his need

for medical care and refused to provide it to him. He also should identify when and how he

made each such person aware of his need for medical care. Without any defendants, his

complaint must be dismissed. 

The other problem is that Livingston has now been moved to Avenal State Prison. In

light of his transfer, his request for injunctive relief to compel the San Quentin warden (or any

other individuals at San Quentin) to provide medical care is now moot. If he is not now

receiving adequate medical care at Avenal, he should pursue that matter at Avenal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend so that

Livingston may attempt to identify as defendants any persons at San Quentin who allegedly

acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The San Quentin warden is dismissed

from this action. The amended complaint must be filed no later than May 4, 2007, and must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a

complete statement of his claims and will supersede existing pleadings. See London v. Coopers

Case 3:06-cv-06266-SI Document 5 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

& Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged

in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended complaint.") Failure to file the

amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action.

Plaintiff must promptly inform the court of any change of address. It is not enough that

he merely puts a new address as his return address on a filing because the clerical staff does not

routinely check addresses on filings against the court records. Plaintiff must file a separate onepage document with a caption of "Notice of Change Of Address" to inform the court of his

change of address each time he is moved to a different prison or is released from custody. 

The clerk will update the docket sheet to reflect that the plaintiff is now housed at Avenal

State Prison. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06266-SI Document 5 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 4