Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03787/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03787-0/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 1

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 2.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN SCOTT ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MONTEREY COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3787 EDL (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Monterey County Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED

with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

A. 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). 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. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary;

Case 3:15-cv-03787-EDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 7
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

the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not

need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his

'entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim

for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff states that he is a post-conviction, pre-trial detainee being housed at the

Monterey County Jail. Plaintiff suffers from Munchausen Syndrome and Obsessive

Compulsive Disorder. Plaintiff’s claims originate on November 15, 2014, when he was

removed from general population, and placed into a suicide-prevention cell for 98 days. 

Plaintiff generally asserts that his placement into the suicide-prevention cell was cruel and

unusual punishment; that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

and mental health needs; and that defendants used excessive force upon him.

Plaintiff has named a host of defendants, but plaintiff does not describe each

defendant’s role in the alleged violations. In addition, plaintiff’s complaint is contradictory in

parts. For example, on the one hand, plaintiff complains that he was not given any pain

medication. But plaintiff also complains that defendants over-medicated him. Plaintiff also

alleges that he was placed in a suicide–prevention cell without reason, but then states that

he was able to successfully hang himself to the point of needing resuscitation and

Case 3:15-cv-03787-EDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 7
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

emergency medical treatment. Plaintiff then states that defendants placed him in a chair

restraint, which is normally used for inmates who are out of control or who are dangers to

themselves. Plaintiff asserts that defendants used the chair restraint on him even though

he was “not suicidal,” as a form of punishment. 

Most of plaintiff’s claims are missing dates, some of the incidents do not give rise to

constitutional claims, and plaintiff’s writing style makes it difficult to ascertain plaintiff’s

meaning in some places. Overall, the complaint does not give fair notice of what each

defendant is alleged to have done and when he/she did it. The lack of detail prevents the

court from determining which claims deserve a response, and from whom, and also

prevents individual defendants from framing a response to the complaint. Plaintiff must file

an amended complaint to correct the following deficiencies. 

First, with respect to the excessive force claim, plaintiff must allege with clarity who

did what to him, and when the events occurred. He seems to suggest that for each day

when he was placed in the restraint chair, defendants physically assaulted him. (Compl. at

11-13.) For each instance in which excessive force allegedly was used on plaintiff, plaintiff

should (a) identify the date on which the force was used, (b) identify who used force on

him, (c) describe what happened, and (d) describe what he was doing at the time force was

used.

Second, plaintiff alleges that he was refused medical and mental health treatment,

but provides no details about the alleged refusals. As with his excessive force claims, the

medical care claim would arise under the Eighth Amendment if he was a convict and under

the Fourteenth Amendment if he was a pretrial detainee. For each instance in which he

allegedly was denied medical or mental health treatment, plaintiff must explain what his

medical or mental health need was, and allege facts showing deliberate indifference to it. 

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment). Plaintiff should (a) describe the medical or mental health need, (b) identify

Case 3:15-cv-03787-EDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 7
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

the date on which the medical or mental health treatment was refused, (c) identify who

refused to provide medical or mental health treatment, (d) describe how he alerted that

person to his need for medical or mental health treatment, and (e) state how the refusal to

provide medical or mental health treatment affected him.

Third, plaintiff claims that his placement in the suicide-prevention cell violated the

Eighth Amendment because he was isolated, he was denied a shower for at least 98 days,

the cell was dirty, small, and had no running water or toilet. While the Constitution does not

mandate comfortable prisons, it also does not permit inhumane ones. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Plaintiff should specify the period of time when he was

housed in the suicide-prevention cell, and specify the individuals who ordered his

placement there, as well as the individuals to whom plaintiff complained.

Fourth, plaintiff claims that, during the time he was in the suicide-prevention cell, he

was denied access to the courts, including access to his attorney, because he was not

transported to any of his scheduled court dates. To establish a claim for any violation of

the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must prove that there was an inadequacy in the

prison’s legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 350-55 (1996). Actual injury is a jurisdictional requirement that flows from the

standing doctrine and may not be waived. See Nevada Dep’t of Corrections v. Greene,

648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349). It is “actual prejudice

with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing

deadline or to present a claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348. In order to state a claim that he

was denied access to the courts, plaintiff must provide facts to how he was actually injured

by hindering his efforts to pursue a legal claim.

Fifth, plaintiff alleges that he was given too much medication and forced to lie in his

own waste because he was immobilized. For each instance in which he was allegedly

given too much medication and lying in his own waste, plaintiff should (a) identify the

date(s) upon when this occurred, (b) identify who administered the medication, (c) identify

Case 3:15-cv-03787-EDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

who observed plaintiff lying in his own waste and what they did, and (d) identify to whom

plaintiff complained.

Sixth, plaintiff alleges that he was put in the suicide-prevention cell, the chair

restraint and additional restraints as punishment. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must

allege the dates on which he was put in the chair and additional restraints, who put him in

the chair and additional restraints, why he was put in the chair and additional restraints, and

for how long he was kept in the chair and additional restraints. This information, as well as

whether he was a pretrial detainee or convict, is necessary to determine whether the event

amounts to a constitutional violation.

As to every defendant he seeks to hold liable, plaintiff must name him/her in his

amended complaint and must allege his claim(s) against him/her. In his amended

complaint, he should describe what each defendant did (or failed to do) that caused a

violation of his constitutional rights so that each proposed defendant has fair notice of his

allegedly wrongful conduct. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (liability

under § 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by a defendant). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff

can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation

of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d

1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff must link the defendants’ actions or inactions with

plaintiff’s claims. He must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” actions

which violated his or her rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A

defendant cannot be held liable simply based on his membership in a group; rather, each

individual defendant’s participation in unlawful conduct must be shown. Chuman v. Wright,

76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996). Either personal involvement or integral participation of

the officers in the alleged constitutional violation is required before liability may be imposed;

liability may not be imposed based solely on an officer’s presence during the incident. See

Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 769-70 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Case 3:15-cv-03787-EDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

To the extent plaintiff is attempting to impose supervisory liability on some

defendants, a supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678

F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.

2011)). Plaintiff should keep in mind that where there is no evidence that the supervisor

was personally involved or connected to the alleged violation, the supervisor may not be

liable. See Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, 599 F. 3d 946, 961-62 (9th Cir.

2010).

To impose municipal liability under Section 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 Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997).

For the above reasons, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to

provide the information as specified above. Although the federal rules require brevity in

pleading, a complaint must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice” of the claim and

the “grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Even at the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions,

that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” 

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). For purposes of organization, in

his amended complaint, it may be clearer for plaintiff to separate each claim into the

allegation, the defendants involved, and supporting facts.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)

Case 3:15-cv-03787-EDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used

in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all

the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.

1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

file an amended complaint within the designated time and in compliance with this order will

result in the dismissal of this action.

2. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

of 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January , 2016 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.15\Robinson787dwla.wpd

5

Case 3:15-cv-03787-EDL Document 5 Filed 01/05/16 Page 7 of 7