Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01905/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01905-0/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

KENNETH WAYNE ELLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MENDOCINO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-1905 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a county jail detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)

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

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 1:15-cv-01905-NJV Document 4 Filed 05/14/15 Page 1 of 4
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 Even though pretrial detainees' claims arise under the Due Process Clause, the

Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating those claims. See Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees provide minimum standard of

care for pretrial detainees). The Ninth Circuit has determined that the appropriate standard

for evaluating constitutional claims brought by pretrial detainees is the same one used to

evaluate convicted prisoners' claims under the Eighth Amendment. "The requirement of

conduct that amounts to 'deliberate indifference' provides an appropriate balance of the pretrial

detainees' right to not be punished with the deference given to prison officials to manage the

prisons." Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1443 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc)

(citation omitted).

2

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 did not receive proper medical treatment for his broken jaw.

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

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.1

 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). 

Case 1:15-cv-01905-NJV Document 4 Filed 05/14/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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

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 prior to being in custody he was in an auto accident and broke his

jaw and several teeth. His doctor prescribed morphine and oxycodin for him. Two months

after the auto accident plaintiff was arrested and taken into custody. He alleges that his

medication was confiscated and he was only seen once by the jail dentist. Plaintiff states

that he needs to see an oral specialist and to be put back on his medication. Plaintiff fails

to provide more information and does not identify any specific defendant.

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to identify the actions of

specific named defendants and to describe how these defendants were deliberately

Case 1:15-cv-01905-NJV Document 4 Filed 05/14/15 Page 3 of 4
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

indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff must describe how the actions of the

dentist were inadequate and how the failure to refer Plaintiff to an oral specialist or give him

his medication was a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

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)

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

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

“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-01905-NJV Document 4 Filed 05/14/15 Page 4 of 4