Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-00986-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

VANCE LAVELL BOLDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

J. HOWLIN, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-0986 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend and Plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. (Docs. 4, 5.)

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;

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

Case 1:15-cv-00986-NJV Document 6 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 5
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

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 to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

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 alleges that he was denied proper mental health care.

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

(1976); 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 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. Id. at 1059. 

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. The

Case 1:15-cv-00986-NJV Document 6 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 5
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

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; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of

indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps

to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only

“be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious

harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have

been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth

Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison

medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v.

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff states that his commitment offense involved him murdering his roommate.

Plaintiff currently has a cellmate and has anxiety and hallucinations in which his murdered

roommate appears in the body of his cellmate. Plaintiff seeks a single cell. Plaintiff states

that he appeared before a mental health interdisciplinary treatment team housing program

recommendation board that concluded he does not have mental health issues that warrant

a single cell. Plaintiff identifies several defendants who were on the board and alleges they

were deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs. 

The court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint was with leave to amend to enable

Plaintiff to provide more information regarding the mental health care that was denied and

the actions of the individual defendants. Plaintiff has failed to describe if he has sought any

other services other than a single cell, and if he has been provided mental health care or if

Case 1:15-cv-00986-NJV Document 6 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 5
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 In an exhibit in the original complaint prison officials suggested plaintiff continue to

work with his primary clinician and perhaps psychiatry. It is not clear if plaintiff pursued these

services.

4

it has been denied.1

 While plaintiff may be able to present a cognizable claim he has

provided little information which only indicates a difference of opinion. Plaintiff’s bare

allegations are insufficient to state a claim under Iqbal. "A claim has facial plausibility when

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S., at 678. The

complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to allow plaintiff to provide more

information and describe the actions of the defendants. 

Plaintiff should also indicate if he seeks monetary or injunctive relief. While he

stated he sought injunctive relief in a prior complaint, he did not indicate this in the

amended complaint and 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.

CONCLUSION

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

the standards set forth above. The second amended complaint must be filed within

twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order and the words SECOND 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 amend within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

2. It is the 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

Case 1:15-cv-00986-NJV Document 6 Filed 05/14/15 Page 4 of 5
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

“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: May 14, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-00986-NJV Document 6 Filed 05/14/15 Page 5 of 5