Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05015/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05015-0/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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND KING FERNANDES, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4228 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Alameda County Jail proceeding pro se, filed a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the denial of adequate medical

care. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written

order. The Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for

relief, and grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies in

the original complaint. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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

--------

5015

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF Document 6 Filed 03/04/08 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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd 2

any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under the

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

Plaintiff alleges that he has not received sufficient medical care at the jail for his

“numerous broken bones.” 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, 104 (1976). A determination of "deliberate indifference"

involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need

and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A "serious" medical need exists if

the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the

"unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at

104). Indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment include the

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy

of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

individual’s daily activities, and the existence of chronic and substantial pain. Id. at

1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

Plaintiff’s allegations of receiving “no relief” and “no cast no nothing” for his “numerous

broken bones,” when liberally construed, could amount to deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs. 

However, Plaintiff has not named any jail official as a defendant, nor has he

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF Document 6 Filed 03/04/08 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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd 3

alleged how any such individual official was involved in responding, or failing to

respond, to his requests for medical attention. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff

must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s conduct that proximately

caused a violation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff’s names the following defendants in the complaint: “Prison Health Services,”

“Alameda County Sheriff’s Department,” “Nurses Station,” and “Ortho Doctors.” 

Naming the jail’s medical department, or a group of nurses or doctors, does not suffice to

plead a claim. Because an individual defendant cannot be held liable based solely on his

membership in a group, a showing of his individual participation in unlawful conduct is

required. See Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding

instruction permitting jury to find individual liable as member of team, without any

showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper). 

Similarly, naming the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department as a whole does not

suffice to plead a § 1983 claim because liability is dependent upon the actions of the

individual employees. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)

(rejecting concept of respondeat superior liability in § 1983 context and requiring

individual liability for constitutional violation); see also Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912,

916 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding local government cannot be liable for damages based on

actions of one of its employees unless employee inflicted constitutional harm). 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to identify, if possible, the jail

officials involved in allegedly failing to provide him adequate care, and to set forth

specific facts showing how each such Defendant’s actions proximately caused a violation

of his constitutional rights. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty days from

the date this order is filed to cure the deficiencies described above. The second amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (07-5015 JF

(PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, Plaintiff must include in

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF Document 6 Filed 03/04/08 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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd 4

his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the Defendants

he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff

may not incorporate material from the prior complaints, such as exhibits or supporting

documentation of his prison administrative appeal, by reference. Plaintiff must include

all of his claims and name all Defendants in the amended complaint. Failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in 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.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/29/08 JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF Document 6 Filed 03/04/08 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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\CR.07\Fernandes015dwlta.wpd 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Raymond K. Fernandes 

AHD-727 

Santa Rita Jail 

2-B-7 

5325 Broder Blvd 

Dublin, CA 94568 

Case 5:07-cv-05015-JF Document 6 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 5