Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00749/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00749-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coalinga State Hospital
Defendant
Archie Cranford
Plaintiff
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00749 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”), a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on May 19, 2014. Pursuant to Court order, he filed a First 

Amended Complaint on January 15, 2015, and a Second Amended Complaint on June 29, 2015. He 

names the State of California as the sole Defendant.1 

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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 “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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on July 21, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00749-DLB Document 16 Filed 11/04/15 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

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

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

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California, 

where the events at issue occurred. 

Plaintiff alleges that in 2014, he was assaulted by other patients while standing in line to 

receive his morning medication. He contends that there were several state employees present at the 

time, but they did not make any effort to stop the attack or protect Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff contends that he has a right to be protected from physical harm and that the 

employees should have summoned help. Rather than sound their personal alarms, they stood by and 

watched the assault take place. As a result, Plaintiff was injured.

C. ANALYSIS

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). 

The substantive component of the Due Process Clause protects civil detainees from unconstitutional 

Case 1:14-cv-00749-DLB Document 16 Filed 11/04/15 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

conditions of confinement, and Plaintiff has a right to personal safety while in state detention. 

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. 

The professional judgment standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that required 

in ordinary tort cases for a finding of 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).

In the Court’s prior screening order, the Court explained that Plaintiff, who did not identify

any individual Defendants, had to allege facts to connect a named Defendant to the actions 

complained of. Even at the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions,

that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. 

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). The Court also explained that while Plaintiff may 

be able to ultimately state a claim for failure to protect, he did not include enough facts about when 

the incident occurred. 

Plaintiff has failed to correct these deficiencies. His failure to name any individual 

Defendant, combined with his failure to provide specific information about the event to permit a 

named Defendant to understand the claims, is fatal to his cause of action.

2

 Moreover, at least one 

 

2

Plaintiff does not name any Doe Defendants. 

Case 1:14-cv-00749-DLB Document 16 Filed 11/04/15 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

named Defendant is required for service and to move this action forward. It is Plaintiff’s 

responsibility to obtain the names of at least one Defendant and prosecute this action.

Insofar as Plaintiff names the State of California, the Court has already explained that 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).

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was his second attempt, after receiving instruction 

from this Court, to state a claim and name individual Defendants. The Court’s prior screening order 

indicated that this would be his final opportunity. 

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, this action is DISMISSED. The dismissal will be WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing a new action if he discovers the names of the individuals involved in 

the incident.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00749-DLB Document 16 Filed 11/04/15 Page 4 of 4