Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04588/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04588-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keven Jerome Butler
Plaintiff
Facility Administrator
Defendant
Medical Director
Defendant
San Francisco County Sheriff's Dept.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVEN JEROME BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 

SHERIFF'S DEPT FACILITY

ADMINISTRATOR MEDICAL

DIRECTOR; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-4588 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Keven Jerome Butler, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed a pro se civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

Butler alleges the following in his complaint about conditions at the San Francisco

County Jail, where he has been housed since his arrest on February 15, 2009: Before his arrest,

he had taken oxycontin for two years for spinal problems. Following his arrest, he provided his

medical information to "classification." Complaint, p. 3. Some unidentified person at the jail

put him on another drug that he "already had used and found ineffective. It took a month for

[him] to see someone who could change [his] medication." Id. Mr. Poe did nothing to monitor

his situation and "created a very unsafe place" for him and he was attacked. He also repeatedly

Case 3:09-cv-04588-SI Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Butler's claims about conditions of confinement arise under the Fourteenth Amendment's

Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause

because he was a pretrial detainee. Even though pretrial detainees' claims arise under the Due

Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment serves as a benchmark for evaluating those claims. See

Carnell v. Grimm, 74 F.3d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1996) (8th Amendment guarantees provide

minimum standard of care for pretrial detainees).

2

was denied access to a law library. He also had problems receiving satisfactory responses to his

grievances. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted against any

defendant. Butler must file an amended complaint to correct the following deficiencies. 

First, Butler has not alleged the necessary mental state for any defendant Butler wants to

hold liable on his medical care claim. When an inmate alleges that his medical care has been

constitutionally inadequate, he must allege two things to state a claim: (1) a serious medical need

and (2) deliberate indifference to that need by prison officials. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974

F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).1 Butler has not alleged that any

defendant was aware that the drug provided to him was ineffective for him and nonetheless

Case 3:09-cv-04588-SI Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

It is permissible to use Doe defendant designations in a complaint to refer to defendants

whose names are unknown to plaintiff. Although the use of Doe defendants is acceptable to

withstand dismissal of a complaint at the initial review stage, using Doe defendants creates its

own problem: those persons cannot be served with process until they are identified by their real

names. Plaintiff must take steps promptly to discover the full name (i.e., first and last name) of

each Doe defendant and provide that information to the court in an amendment to his pleading

that explains what each such person did or failed to do that caused a violation of his

constitutional rights. The burden remains on the plaintiff; the court will not undertake to

investigate the names and identities of unnamed defendants.

3

insisted that he take that drug instead of oxycontin. He has not alleged that anyone acted with

the requisite deliberate indifference. Mere negligence in medical care is insufficient to violate

the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment rights of an inmate. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004).

 Second, Butler has not linked any defendant to his medical care claim. He named the

facility administrator/medical director as a defendant, but did not allege that the person

participated in the medical decisions with regard to Butler. The facility administrator/medical

director may have been listed because her or she was in charge of the medical care services at

the jail, but that would be improper. There is no respondeat superior liability under section

1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an

employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation

by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). In his amended

complaint, Butler must link one or more defendants to his medical care claim by identifying the

person(s) who caused him to be given a drug other than oxycontin, and/or caused the delay he

experienced before seeing someone who would change his pain medication.2

 

Third, the complaint does not state a claim for relief against any defendant for denial of

access to the courts based on the law library restrictions because the complaint does not allege

an actual injury. A constitutional right of access to the courts exists, but to establish a claim for

any violation of the right of access to the courts, the prisoner must show that there was an

inadequacy in the prison's legal access program that caused him an actual injury. See Lewis v.

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996). To prove an actual injury, the prisoner must show that the

inadequacy hindered him in presenting a non-frivolous claim concerning his conviction or

Case 3:09-cv-04588-SI Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

conditions of confinement. See id. at 355. Examples of impermissible hindrances include: a

prisoner whose complaint was dismissed for failure to satisfy some technical requirement which,

because of deficiencies in the prison's legal assistance facilities, he could not have known; and

a prisoner who had "suffered arguably actionable harm" that he wished to bring to the attention

of the court, but was so stymied by the inadequacies of the prison's services that he was unable

even to file a complaint. See id. at 351. In his amended complaint, Butler may attempt to plead

a denial of access to the courts claim, but is cautioned that he must identify the deficiency in the

legal program and allege an actual injury to state a claim for relief. He also needs to link one

or more defendants to this claim by alleging what each person did or failed to do that caused a

denial of his right of access to the courts. 

Fourth, his allegations that the administrative appeals were not properly handled do not

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. There is no constitutional right to a prison or

jail administrative appeal or grievance system in California. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Antonelli v.

Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, 3084.1(d).

Butler had no federal constitutional right to a properly functioning appeal system. An incorrect

decision on an administrative appeal or failure to handle it in a particular way therefore did not

amount to a violation of his right to due process. 

Fifth, the complaint contains some allegations about a safety concern, but there is not

nearly enough information for the court to evaluate whether a claim has been stated. Butler must

attempt in his amended complaint to allege his claim more coherently. It is unclear from his

complaint what defendant Mr. Poe did, e.g., whether he "did nothing" with regard to Butler's

medical problem or with regard to his physical safety or something else. See Complaint, p. 3.

In his amended complaint, Butler should allege each claim separately and should clearly describe

what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. If he

wants to complain that someone failed to protect him, he needs to identify the wrongdoer, and

state facts showing that the wrongdoer knew of a risk of harm to him and failed to protect him

from that harm. 

Case 3:09-cv-04588-SI Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Sixth, Butler is cautioned that he should only include properly joined defendants in his

amended complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) provides that all persons may be

joined in one action as defendants if "any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,

severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,

or series of transactions or occurrences" and "any question of law or fact common to all

defendants will arise in the action." Claims regarding the safety, inmate appeals and law library

access problems should be pursued in a separate civil rights complaint if the claims are directed

at defendants different from the defendants in the medical care claim. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. The amended

complaint must be filed no later than June 11, 2010, and must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff

is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his claims and will

supersede existing pleadings. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.

1981) ("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

alleged in the amended complaint.") Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will

result in the dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04588-SI Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 5 of 5