Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01333/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01333-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 Section II.A. of the form complaint, under “Parties,” plaintiff lists two inmates,

Jose Lopez and Pablo Lopez, as “additional plaintiffs.” These two individuals are not

included as plaintiffs in the caption of the complaint, however, and thus were not included in

the Court’s docket. Further, the complaint includes no allegations pertaining to either of

them. Moreover, neither has signed the complaint, as required by Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and plaintiff, who is not an attorney, may not sign the complaint

for them or otherwise represent them herein. See Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d

Cir. 1998) (holding pro se litigant may not appear on behalf of or represent another person). 

Consequently, the Court does not consider Jose Lopez and Pablo Lopez to be plaintiffs

herein. If such individuals wish to bring claims in federal court, they may do so by filing a

new complaint in a separate action, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO O. VALLE, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

850 BRYANT STREET CJ2 7TH

FLOOR MEDICAL/MENTAL

HEALTH,

Defendant. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 07-1333 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 21, 2006, Julio O. Valle, Jr. (“plaintiff”), an inmate incarcerated in the San

Francisco County Jail (“County Jail”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he received inadequate medical care during his

incarceration.1

 By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

Case 3:07-cv-01333-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/11/07 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

2

A. Standard of Review

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 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).

B. Claims

Plaintiff alleges that he “explained to medical and mental health [his] concerns and

issues about [his] health and mental illnesses,” but jail officials “ignored” him. 

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

Case 3:07-cv-01333-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/11/07 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

F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)). Here, plaintiff does not allege the nature of his medical

condition or conditions, nor does he describe what medical treatment he sought from jail

officials. Consequently, the Court cannot discern whether he had a sufficiently “serious”

medical need to implicate his constitutional right to medical care. Plaintiff will be given

leave to amend the complaint to describe the nature of his medical condition or conditions,

his requests for medical care, and the jail officials’ responses, if any, to such requests. 

Moreover, plaintiff has not named any jail official as a defendant, nor has he 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). The only defendant named in

the complaint is “850 Bryant Street CJ2 7th Floor Medical/Mental Health.” The Court takes

judicial notice that 850 Bryant Street is the address for the County Jail, and, consequently, it

appears that plaintiff is trying to name the jail’s medical and mental health department, if

such department exists, as the defendant. Naming any such department as a whole does not

suffice to plead a claim, however. 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). 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 him injury or harm.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. The complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30)

days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT, using

the court’s form civil rights complaint, in order to cure the deficiencies noted above. 

Case 3:07-cv-01333-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/11/07 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

Plaintiff shall complete the form, and include in the caption both the case number of this

action, No. C7-1333 MMC (PR), and the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to include new claims and

new defendants, he must file an amended complaint, which amended complaint also must

include any claims from the original complaint he wishes to preserve. 

If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the

action will be dismissed.

2. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any 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, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-01333-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/11/07 Page 4 of 4