Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01351/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01351-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Diaz
Defendant
Fresno County Jail
Defendant
Garcia
Defendant
Hernandez
Defendant
Mendoza
Defendant
Montoya
Defendant
Nichols
Defendant
Oliver
Defendant
Scott
Defendant
Singh
Defendant
Derek Thomas
Plaintiff
Walton
Defendant
Yang
Defendant
L. Ybarra
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01351-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a former Fresno County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, 

filed September 3, 2015.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on September 14, 2015. (ECF No. 4.) 

Case 1:15-cv-01351-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 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

2

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, 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 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff claims that officers at the Fresno County Jail subjected him to inadequate 

medical care. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Officer Walton; Corporal 

Oliver; Lt. R. Diaz; Officer Nichols; Corporal Ybarra; Officer Yang; Officer Hernandez; Officer 

Garcia; Officer Montoya; Officer Singh; Officer Mendoza; Officer Scott. Plaintiff‟s statement of 

claim is that Defendants failed to provide medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff fails, however to include a statement of facts to support his claim. Plaintiff refers the 

Court to an attached statement of facts. Attached to Plaintiff‟s complaint are copies of various 

documents, interspersed with what appears to be allegations and legal argument. 

Plaintiff is advised that in order to state a claim for relief, Plaintiff must allege facts that 

support his claims for relief. Plaintiff does not need to attach documents to his complaint, and 

the Court will not refer to other documents to make the complaint complete. Plaintiff must set 

forth his claim, and set forth facts in support of his claim. Legal argument is not necessary. The 

Court will provide Plaintiff with the following guidance.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act under which this action proceeds provides for liability for state 

actors that cause “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution.” 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection 

Case 1:15-cv-01351-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 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

3

or link between the actions of the defendants, and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered 

by the plaintiff. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 

U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person „subjects‟ another to the 

deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an 

affirmative act, participates in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In other words, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating 

personal involvement by each Defendant.

B. Medical Care

Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to provide him medical care in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff does not indicate whether he was a pretrial detainee at the time of 

the events complained of, or whether he was serving a sentence of confinement pursuant to a 

judgment of conviction. While the deliberate indifference standard is applied under 

Constitutional provision, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs claims 

for denial of medical care as a pretrial detainee. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 

1435, 1442-43 (9th Cir. 1991)(applying deliberate indifference standard to pretrial detainees 

through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A prisoner‟s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of 

“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006)(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two part test for deliberate 

indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) “a „serious medical need‟ by demonstrating that failure 

to treat a prisoner‟s condition could result in further significant injury or the „unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain,‟” and (2) “the defendant‟s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. A defendant does not act in a deliberately indifferent 

manner unless the defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or 

safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal 

standard,” Simmons v. Navajo County Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010); Toguchi v. 

Case 1:15-cv-01351-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 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

4

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is shown where there was “a purposeful act or 

failure to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical need” and the indifference caused 

harm. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a 

prisoner‟s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be 

substantial. Mere „indifference,‟ „negligence,‟ or „medical malpractice‟ will not support this 

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)(citing 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106). “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing 

or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the 

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely 

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 

45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 

1990). Additionally, a prisoner‟s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not 

support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in support of his complaint, the complaint fails 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended 

complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

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

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

Case 1:15-cv-01351-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/20/16 Page 4 of 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

5

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

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed September 3, 2015, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

first amended complaint; and

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

the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure 

to state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01351-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 5