Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07279/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07279-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL B. PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY NEKAMOTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-07279-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 1

INTRODUCTION

Randall Pierce, formerly an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, he alleges that a doctor was deliberately 

indifferent “to several extremely serious medical needs etc., etc.” that are not described in the 

complaint. Docket No. 1 at 3. His complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 

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. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro 

se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 

(9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:18-cv-07279-SI Document 13 Filed 03/26/19 Page 1 of 5
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

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 violation 

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

(1988).

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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 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).1 A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” Id. at 570. Pierce’s complaint does not allege facts sufficient to plausibly show the 

violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by any defendant. Leave 

to amend is granted so that Pierce may file an amended complaint that proffers enough facts to state 

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. 

For each claim in his amended complaint, Pierce must name as defendants those individuals 

whose acts or omissions caused the violation of his rights under the Constitution or laws of the 

United States. He must link each person by alleging what that person did or failed to do that caused 

a violation of his rights. It is not sufficient to identify them as a group, e.g., the medical staff, and 

instead must provide the names and acts or omissions of individual persons. It is a plaintiff’s 

responsibility to plead his claim(s); the court will not read through exhibits to the complaint to piece 

together a claim for a plaintiff. 

The court provides the legal standards for § 1983 claims regarding medical care because 

Pierce’s complaint concerns his medical care. In his amended complaint, Pierce must state whether 

he was a convict or a pretrial detainee at the time the relevant events occurred because the claims 

 

1This requirement that the pleader allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face stems from the rule that a complaint must allege “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 

“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 and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Case 3:18-cv-07279-SI Document 13 Filed 03/26/19 Page 2 of 5
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

arise under different constitutional provisions (i.e., a convict’s medical care claims arise under the 

Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause while a pretrial detainee’s medical 

care claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause) and those provisions now 

have different standards. 

Deliberate indifference to a convicted prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth 

Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

104 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). To establish an Eighth 

Amendment claim based on inadequate medical care, a prisoner-plaintiff must show: (1) a serious 

medical need, and (2) deliberate indifference thereto by a defendant. The subjective deliberate 

indifference standard that applies in an Eighth Amendment claim requires that the official know of 

and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

837 (1994). “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn 

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. A claim of 

medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060-61. If Pierce wishes to pursue an Eighth Amendment claim, he must 

allege facts in his amended complaint showing both a serious medical need and deliberate 

indifference thereto by each named defendant. 

A pretrial detainee’s claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause 

and is governed by an objective deliberate-indifference standard rather than the subjective one that 

applies to a convicted prisoner’s claim. 

[T]he elements of a pretrial detainee’s medical care claim against an individual 

defendant under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are: (i) the 

defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which 

the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of 

suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures 

to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have 

appreciated the high degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the 

defendant's conduct obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant 

caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). For the third element, the 

defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable, “a test that will necessarily ‘turn[] on the 

facts and circumstances of each particular case.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Castro v. 

Case 3:18-cv-07279-SI Document 13 Filed 03/26/19 Page 3 of 5
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

County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)). “[T]he plaintiff must ‘prove more 

than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. (quoting 

Castro, 833 F.3d at 1071). 

The complaint lists the County of Santa Clara as a defendant but does not state a claim 

against that entity. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, i.e., no liability under the 

theory that one is liable simply because he employs a person who has violated a plaintiff's rights. 

See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs.,436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989). The mere fact that the alleged individual wrongdoer was employed by a defendant 

would not be a sufficient basis on which to hold the employing defendant liable. Local governments 

are “persons” subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where official policy or custom causes a 

constitutional tort, see Monell,436 U.S. at 690. To impose municipal liability under § 1983 for a 

violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a 

constitutional right of which he was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this 

policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (4) that the 

policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 

County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). For municipal liability, a plaintiff must plead 

sufficient facts regarding the specific nature of the alleged policy, custom or practice to allow the 

defendant to effectively defend itself, and these facts must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff is 

entitled to relief. See AE v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636-37 (9th Cir. 2012). It is not 

sufficient to merely allege that a policy, custom or practice existed or that individual officers’ 

wrongdoing conduct conformed to a policy, custom or practice. See id. at 636-68.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. Leave to amend is granted so that Pierce may attempt to allege one or more 

claims in an amended complaint. The amended complaint must be filed no later than May 3, 2019, 

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

COMPLAINT on the first page. Pierce is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete 

Case 3:18-cv-07279-SI Document 13 Filed 03/26/19 Page 4 of 5
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

statement of his claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) 

(“For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be 

repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims 

voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) Failure to file the 

amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07279-SI Document 13 Filed 03/26/19 Page 5 of 5