Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01288/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roland Howard
Plaintiff
San Quentin Medical Department
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND HOWARD, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

SAN QUENTIN MEDICAL

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1288 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket No. 4)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, formerly a prisoner of the State of California incarcerated at San Quentin

State Prison in San Quentin, California, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, complaining about inadequate medical care he received at the prison. Plaintiff

also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 4). However, Plaintiff has

completed a prisoner in forma pauperis application, which is now DENIED because the

application contains no information regarding his current financial resources. Plaintiff

must either pay the $350.00 filing fee, or he must complete a non-prisoner application

within thirty days of the date of this order. In this order, the Court dismisses the

complaint with leave to amend and orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within

thirty days from the date of this order. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiff alleges that the “San Quentin Medical Department” failed to provide him

with needed medication between October 6, 2006 and October 13, 2006, at which time

Case 3:07-cv-01288-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff alleges he received medication. Plaintiff further alleges that he was rehoused to

administrative segregation “for addressing my A.D.A. issues.” Plaintiff alleges that the

failure to provide proper treatment may have caused his t-cell count to regress and have

contributed to his collapse. Since filing the complaint, Plaintiff has informed the Court

that he has been released from custody (docket no. 2). At the time of filing, Plaintiff

sought injunctive relief and damages. 

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 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. 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).

ANALYSIS

The complaint appears directed toward the failure of the jail to adequately address

Plaintiff’s medical problems. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See 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); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). A

determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the

Case 3:07-cv-01288-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 7
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

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to

that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. 

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). 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; or the

existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a

"serious" need for medical treatment. See id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright,

900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)).

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). In order for deliberate

indifference to be established, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part

of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v.

Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). However, in

his complaint, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against any individuals or municipal

liability on the part of the County.

To state a claim arising under federal law, it must be clear from the face of 

Plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question. Easton v. Crossland

Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997). While a plaintiff is not required to

plead his evidence “or specific factual details not ascertainable in advance of discovery,”

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S.

1054 (1987), a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under § 1983 if the

allegations are mere conclusions, Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989

(9th Cir. 1976). And a complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant

which violated the plaintiff's rights fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the

Case 3:07-cv-01288-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 7
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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5

(9th Cir. 1982). District courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to

amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to state the specifics regarding the mistreatment he

suffered from any particular defendant, how his constitutional rights were violated, and

the conduct of each Defendant that he asserts is responsible for a constitutional violation. 

As such, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend to allege specifics regarding any claims

he has against any individually named defendant.

 In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must establish legal liability of each person or

entity for the claimed violation of his rights. Liability may be imposed on an individual

defendant under section 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately

caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A

person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he

does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442

(9th Cir. 1995) (prison official's failure to intervene to prevent 8th Amendment violation

may be basis for liability). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff

must instead "set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's" deprivation of

protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

With regard to his suit against the San Quentin Medical Department, the Eleventh

Amendment bars from the federal courts suits against a state by its own citizens, citizens

of another state or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. See Atascadero State Hosp.

v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985). This Eleventh Amendment immunity also

extends to suits against a state agency, see, e.g., Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior

Case 3:07-cv-01288-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

Court, 318 F.3d 1156,1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (11th Amendment bars suit against state

superior court and its employees). In naming only the San Quentin Medical Department

as a Defendant in this action, Plaintiff has only claimed liability against a division of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which is immune from suit. 

Plaintiff has not properly alleged liability on the part of any proper defendants. 

Plaintiff will be provided with thirty days in which to amend to correct the deficiencies

in his complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED. However, Plaintiff is

provided with LEAVE TO AMEND his complaint within thirty days, as set forth below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as

indicated above. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty days from the

date of this order. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number used

in this order and the words “COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the

first page. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the

complaint without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis has been denied. Plaintiff

must either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a non-prisoner application within thirty days

of this order. Failure to do so within the designated time will result in the dismissal of

the complaint without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of

the Court’s non-prisoner application form along with this order. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

which are not alleged in the amended 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.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

Case 3:07-cv-01288-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/30/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

4. 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 under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2007

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01288-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/30/07 Page 6 of 7
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN QUENTIN MEDICAL DEPT. et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-01288 JSW 

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 July 30, 2007, 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.

Roland Howard

1075 Fillmore St.

San Francisco, CA 94121

Dated: July 30, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-01288-JSW Document 6 Filed 07/30/07 Page 7 of 7