Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02640/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02640-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEWEL E. DYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY PEARCE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-02640-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended 

complaint.

DISCUSSION

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.” Although 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 

Case 3:17-cv-02640-JD Document 27 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

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 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 that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff presents many allegations regarding his confinement in Mendocino County Jail. 

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. 1

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 

 

1

It appears that plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. 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).

Case 3:17-cv-02640-JD Document 27 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

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).

Inmates who sue prison officials for injuries suffered while in custody may do so under the 

Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, under the 

Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979); 

Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). But under both 

clauses, the inmate must show that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at 

1068.

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 18(a) provides: “A party asserting a claim to relief as an 

original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or 

as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime as the party has against an 

opposing party.” “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against 

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in 

different suits[.]” Id. 

It is true that Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) provides that “[p]ersons . . . may be joined in one action 

as defendants if: (A) any right is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with 

respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

Case 3:17-cv-02640-JD Document 27 Filed 04/24/18 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the 

action.” However, “[a] buckshot complaint that would be rejected if filed by a free person – say, a 

suit complaining that A defrauded the plaintiff, B defamed him, C punched him, D failed to pay a 

debt, and E infringed his copyright, all in different transactions – should be rejected if filed by a 

prisoner.” Id. at 607.

In the original complaint plaintiff argued that he was receiving inadequate health care and 

being denied access to the courts. He did not provide sufficient information so the complaint was 

dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has presented additional information regarding the 

medical care claim but has also presented unrelated claims against approximately 25 defendants. 

Plaintiff argues he was denied access to the courts, guards are calling him names, his incoming 

mail is being tampered with, his First Amendment rights are being violated, his property has been 

destroyed, he is receiving inadequate food, inmate grievances are not being processes and other 

allegations.

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff should focus the second 

amended complaint on a few related incidents and he must identify the specific actions of the 

defendants and describe how they violated his constitutional rights with respect to the legal 

standards set forth above. Plaintiff should present a complaint with just a few related claims like 

his original complaint, but with sufficient allegations in support. Plaintiff may file new actions for 

the other claims if he wishes, and he will be provided with a blank complaint form. Plaintiff is 

also reminded that he may only proceed with claims that were fully exhausted in the jail grievance 

system. Failure to follow the court’s instructions may result in dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Ninth Circuit has held that a 

district court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant only in “exceptional 

circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of both (1) the likelihood of 

success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of 

the complexity of the legal issues involved. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 

1991). Plaintiff appears able to present his claims adequately, and the issues are not complex. 

Therefore, the motion to appoint counsel will be denied.

Case 3:17-cv-02640-JD Document 27 Filed 04/24/18 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 case.

2. The Clerk shall SEND plaintiff a blank civil rights form and in forma pauperis 

application. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 17) is DENIED.

3. 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: April 24, 2018

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02640-JD Document 27 Filed 04/24/18 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEWEL E. DYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY PEARCE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-02640-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 24, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jewel E. Dyer ID: A#20559

M.C.S.O. Corrections Division

951 Low Gap Rd.

Ukiah, CA 95482 

Dated: April 24, 2018

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:17-cv-02640-JD Document 27 Filed 04/24/18 Page 6 of 6