Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04972/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04972-0/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

VICTORIO M. STEPHENS, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4972 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Santa Clara County Jail in San Jose, California,

has filed a pro se civil rights complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claiming various violations of his federal rights. He also claims violations of

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

("ADA"). 

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). 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, however. 

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

Case 3:05-cv-04972-TEH Document 5 Filed 03/06/06 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

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).

To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege four

essential elements: (1) that he is an individual with a disability; (2) that he is

otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s

services, programs, or activities; (3) that he was either excluded from

participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs or

activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and

(4) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the

plaintiff’s disability. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while using the jail's physical therapy

equipment on August 13, 2005 and that he was not provided medical attention

until August 15, 2005. Plaintiff also alleges that he has not been provided

adequate medical care because he has been given incorrect medication and

physician-prescribed items such as orthopedic shoes have been delayed at times. 

Plaintiff finally alleges that prison officials have not properly accommodated his

"left-side paralysis-gait instability" and "muscle weakness" disability.

The Constitution requires that prison officials provide all inmates with the

basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care

and personal safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). A prison

official violates this constitutional duty only if two requirements are met: (1) the

deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the prison

official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Id. at 834. 

Case 3:05-cv-04972-TEH Document 5 Filed 03/06/06 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

In prison-conditions cases, the necessary state of mind is one of deliberate

indifference. See id.(inmate safety); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)

(inmate health). A prison official cannot be held liable unless the standard for

criminal recklessness is met, i.e., the official must know of and disregard an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Neither

negligence nor gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference. See id. at

835-36 & n.4; see also Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (establishing that deliberate

indifference requires more than negligence). 

Plaintiff's allegations state no more than a claim for negligence or medical

malpractice not cognizable under § 1983. He will nonetheless be provided an

opportunity to amend and set forth additional facts possibly supporting a claim

for deliberate indifference. Plaintiff is reminded that he must also link each

defendant to his allegations of wrongdoing. Specifically, plaintiff must set forth

facts showing how each named defendant actually and proximately caused the

constitutional deprivations of which he complains. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

628, 633-34 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff's allegations do not state a cognizable claim under the ADA

either. They are simply too conclusory. But again he will be afforded an

opportunity to set forth additional facts possibly supporting a claim under the

ADA. See Thompson, 295 F.3d at 895 (setting forth required elements for an

ADA claim). 

CONCLUSION

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

as indicated above, within 30 days of this order. The pleading must be simple

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

and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to

Case 3:05-cv-04972-TEH Document 5 Filed 03/06/06 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

file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the

amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 03/06/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04972-TEH Document 5 Filed 03/06/06 Page 4 of 4