Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00136/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00136-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM WYATT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00136 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January 31, 

2014. He names Kim Wyatt as Defendant. Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge on February 7, 2014. On February 23, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and determined 

it failed to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint. On March 

4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, 

if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 17 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 4
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

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are 

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt 

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to survive 

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that 

a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of 

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently detained at Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff states that he was 

assaulted and injured. As a result of the assault, Plaintiff was seen by a unit doctor who assessed the 

injury and instructed the defendant to assess the Plaintiff and apply warm compresses to the injured 

parts of Plaintiff’s person. The defendant passed the job to another nurse, but that nurse failed to do 

so as well. Plaintiff claims he is still in constant pain to this day as a result of the nurse’s failure to 

treat.

C. DISCUSSION

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to treatment 

more considerate than that afforded pretrial detainees or convicted criminals. Jones v. Blanas, 393 

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 17 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 4
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

F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s right to constitutionally adequate conditions of 

confinement is protected by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. 

Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (1982).

A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing of his liberty 

interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. Plaintiff is “entitled to 

more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires only that courts ensure that 

professional judgment was exercised. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22. 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; compare Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243-44 

(9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting the Youngberg standard and applying the deliberate indifference standard 

to a pretrial detainee’s right to medical care, and noting that pretrial detainees, who are confined to 

ensure presence at trial, are not similarly situated to those civilly committed). 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. Washington Dep’t of 

Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2379 (2012) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff’s vague allegations fall short of supporting a claim that his federal rights were 

violated. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 322-23. In addition, the mere fact that Defendant passed her job to 

another does not suffice to support a claim under section 1983. Id. There are facts to support an 

allegation that Defendant was consciously indifferent to Plaintiff’s needs.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. In an abundance of caution, the Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to file 

an amended complaint. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 17 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 

(2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to 

state a claim 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 an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00136-GSA Document 17 Filed 01/26/16 Page 4 of 4