Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01010/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01010-2/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 CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALEXANDRA PULLION,

Defendant.

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

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

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. (ECF Nos. 1 & 6.) His 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 

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.”

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/05/16 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

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:

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

regarding his pain, and Defendant refused him treatment. Plaintiff was forced to endure 

his chest pain “until it ended.” Plaintiff was unable to function for a “pur longed” amount 

of time.

Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief.

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/05/16 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

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. 

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. Indeed, it appears from Plaintiff‟s allegations that his pain 

resolved on its own, and without any treatment. Although Plaintiff claims that Defendant 

simply did not want to “get her hands dirty,” he offers no facts to support this conclusion, 

aside from Defendant‟s decision not to treat him. He does not show that this decision 

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

circumstances presented to Defendant.

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend. 

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/05/16 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

V. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff‟s complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief. The Court will 

grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he must demonstrate that 

the alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

677-78. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to „state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.‟” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff 

must also demonstrate that each named Defendant personally participated in a 

deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this screening order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). 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).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/05/16 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

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form and a 

copy of his complaint, filed July 14, 2016;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, 

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to comply with a court 

order and failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01010-AWI-MJS Document 7 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 5