Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01037/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01037-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Archie Cranford
Plaintiff
Dhorleen Narcela
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Archie Cranford is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions 

Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on July 2, 2014. On September 24, 2014, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 

10, 2014, which is currently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DHORLEEN NARCELA, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01037-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 

FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 8]

Case 1:14-cv-01037-LJO-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 6
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

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

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

A complaint must contain “a 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 

“[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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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’s amended complaint asserts several unrelated incidents which occurred from June to 

August 2014, including medical treatment and use of physical force. For instance, on the first two 

pages of the first amended complaint, Plaintiff states:

On 6/26/14 durring the noon meal (LUNCH) plaintiff had scallding hot split pea soup 

deliberately poorn in his lap and as soon as plaintiffs houseing unit had been made fully 

awaire of the matter the nurseing staff was made fully awaire of plaintiffs burns and the 

tipe of bearns and the physical action of the burns (scallding hot split pea soup acts 

percissley like hot frying grease it sticks to plaintiff regardus of what he was warring 

the medical staff was fully awaire of the precise nature of plaintiff injury due to the pdc 

staff called the houseing unit and reported the injury to the houseing unit medical staff 

so they could treat the plaintiff apon his arrival to the houseing unit upon plaintiffs 

Case 1:14-cv-01037-LJO-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/31/14 Page 2 of 6
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

arrivial to the entereance of the houseing door was locked thus the defeandeant and 

componeny denied plaintiff prompent and professheant medical care this is the first 

matter of plaintiff being denied medical treatment in its compleateness there was the 

time when plaintiff was haveing rill bad chest paines RE: SR #10199461 (DATE) 

8/17/14 then there is the matter of being assalted by several outher patients and the 

plaintiff was not given prompt medical care in fact it was quite some time before 

plaintiff receved medical care by the unit doctor in stead of the unit nurse (defeandeant) 

as you are fully awaire by now there are several asspects that are related to this 

admeaned complaint that are very clouseley related to the point that each is the very 

same each is the same each has the same ending which is eather none or delibeartly 

delayed medical care each defeandeant delibeartley failed to reander prompt and 

profeshional medical care in the vearries meathheads as is stated in the administrative 

reameines.

(ECF No. 8, pp. 1-2) (unedited text). Plaintiff goes on to allege and attach several exhibits involving 

unrelated incidents and individuals. 

Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 

F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). As an initial matter, Plaintiff may bring a claim against multiple 

defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of 

transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance 

Co. of North Amercia, 623 F.3d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff is advised that the fact that 

certain claims arise out of his medical treatment does not make them related. Only if the defendants 

are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review the other claims to determine if they may 

be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint violates Rule 18 as he has alleged unrelated incidents, against 

multiple individuals, that occurred on different dates. Plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to file an 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this order. 

In addition, Plaintiff is advised that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must 

be simple, concise, and direct.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1). A party must state its claims 

or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 

Case 1:14-cv-01037-LJO-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/31/14 Page 3 of 6
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

circumstances.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate 

transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

10(b). The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff’s claims. If 

Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he must set forth his claims in a simple, concise, and direct 

manner in order to meet the requirements of Rule 8. 

In the paragraphs that follow, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the applicable legal 

standards that appear to apply to his claims. Plaintiff should carefully review the standards and 

amended only those claims that he believes, in good faith, are cognizable. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Medical Treatment

As a civil detainee, Plaintiff is entitled to treatment more considerate than that afforded pretrial 

detainees or convicted criminals. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s 

right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected by the substantive component 

of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (1982). 

A determination whether Plaintiff’s rights were violated requires “balancing of his liberty 

interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. Plaintiff is “entitled to 

more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of 

confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution requires only that courts ensure that 

professional judgment was exercised. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22. A “decision, if made by a 

professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed only when the decision by the 

professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or 

standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a 

judgment.” Id. at 322-23; compare Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1243-44 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (rejecting the Youngberg standard and applying the deliberate indifference standard to a 

pretrial detainee’s right to medical care, and noting that pretrial detainees, who are confined to ensure 

presence at trial, are not similarly situated to those civilly committed). The professional judgment 

standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that required in ordinary tort cases for a finding of 

Case 1:14-cv-01037-LJO-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/31/14 Page 4 of 6
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

conscious indifference amounting to gross negligence.” Ammons v. Washington Dep’t of Soc. & 

Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2379 (2012) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim under this standard for his medical care. 

Plaintiff merely alleges that unidentified “nursing staff” were aware of his need for medical treatment 

and failed to provide such treatment. Plaintiff’s allegations are so vague that the Court cannot 

determine the exact nature of the circumstances leading to the alleged constitutional violation. More 

specifically, Plaintiff does not indicate what each defendant did or did not do that violated his 

constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are not sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff will 

be given leave to amend his complaint to cure these deficiencies.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s 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 

named 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 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 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01037-LJO-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/31/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

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 Plaintiff an amended civil rights amended complaint 

form;

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed October 10, 2014, 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

second 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: October 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-01037-LJO-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/31/14 Page 6 of 6