Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00869/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00869-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coalinga State Hospital
Defendant
Department of Corrections
Defendant
Fraisure Smith
Plaintiff
Solano County
Defendant
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRAISURE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

First Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Fraisure Smith, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 10, 2013. 

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in 

part, if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but A[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts Aare not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 10 Filed 04/18/14 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

2

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff=s claims must be facially plausible to 

survive screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation 

marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer 

possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability 

falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Claim

Plaintiff is a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California, and 

he brings this suit for damages against the State of California, Solano County Department of 

Corrections, and Coalinga State Hospital. Plaintiff alleges that he contracted valley fever 

following his transfer from Solano County to CSH. Plaintiff alleges that despite having a weak 

immune system, he was never given any warning regarding the danger of valley fever or notice of 

preventative measures regarding valley fever.

B. State and State Agency as Defendants

The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought against the 

state. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). While “[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against a state official for 

prospective relief,” Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1065-66, suits against the state or its agencies are barred 

absolutely, regardless of the form of relief sought, e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. 

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900 (1984); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Medical 

Examiners, 678 F.3d 737, 740 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, Plaintiff may not maintain a claim 

against the State of California or CSH.

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 10 Filed 04/18/14 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

C. Solano County as a Defendant

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Municipalities are considered persons under 

section 1983 and may be liable for causing a constitutional deprivation, if the municipality’s 

policy or custom inflicted the injury. Waggy v. Spokane County Washington, 594 F.3d 707, 713 

(9th Cir. 2010) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978) and 

Long, 442 F.3d at 1185) (quotation marks omitted).

In this instance, Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a claim against 

Solano County.1

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar 

v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 

2101 (2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

///

///

 

1 Venue for a claim against Solano County is proper in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. 

The Court will address that issue in the unlikely event that Plaintiff is able to state a viable claim against Solano 

County. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise defective venue sua sponte); see 

also Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1991) (courts have broad discretion regarding severance).

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 10 Filed 04/18/14 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

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim 

under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00869-AWI-SKO Document 10 Filed 04/18/14 Page 4 of 4