Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00832/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00832-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT CLAYTON BELTON, P04485, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-0832 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se

complaint for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on October 12, 14,

18 and 25, 2014, and November 2, 2014, while he was a pretrial detainee at the

Alameda County Jail, unnamed jail officials denied him one of his twice-a-day

dosage of diabetic medication. Plaintiff further alleges that despite filing

grievances, jail officials did not remedy the situation until a state superior court

judge told them to do so on November 6, 2014. Plaintiff names as defendants

only the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department and its health services provider,

“Corizon Health, Inc.”

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). The court must identify cognizable

Case 3:15-cv-00832-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 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

1

Although a pretrial detainee’s 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).

2

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

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).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.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104), overruled in part on

other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc). A prison official is “deliberately indifferent” if he 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). 

Neither negligence nor gross negligence warrant liability under the Eighth

Amendment. Id. at 835-36 & n4. An “official’s failure to alleviate a significant

Case 3:15-cv-00832-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 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 3

risk that he should have perceived but did not, . . . cannot under our cases be

condemned as the infliction of punishment.” Id. at 838. Instead, “the official’s

conduct must have been ‘wanton,’ which turns not upon its effect on the prisoner,

but rather, upon the constraints facing the official.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d

1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03

(1991)). Prison officials violate their constitutional obligation only by

“intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at

104-05. 

Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to name

individual defendants and set forth specific facts showing how each named 

defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, if

possible. It is not enough that a defendant was negligent or even grossly

negligent. Plaintiff also must link each named defendant with his allegations of

wrongdoing so as to show how each defendant actually and proximately caused

the deprivation of his federal rights of which he complains. See Leer v. Murphy,

844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). The Alameda County Sheriff’s Department

and its health services provider cannot be liable for damages under § 1983 simply

on the theory that they are responsible for the actions or omissions of their

subordinates. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend,

as indicated above, within 28 days of this order. The pleading must be simple

and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to

file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

Case 3:15-cv-00832-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 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 4

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the

amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

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

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.15\Belton, D.15-0832.dwlta.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-00832-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/14/15 Page 4 of 4