Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04586/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04586-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jewel E Dyer
Plaintiff
Napa State Hospital
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEWEL E DYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04586-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, who is detained at Atascadero State Hospital, has filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 

and plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

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). 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

Case 3:19-cv-04586-JD Document 14 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of medical care. Deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. 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). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an 

examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the 

defendant’s response to that need. Id. 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. 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. Id. at 1059-60. 

Plaintiff states that medical personnel at Napa State Hospital denied him proper medical 

care for his injured back. He contends that he told medical personnel that he had medical 

problems with his spine but a defendant on October 8, 2018, stated that he never requested 

treatment. He states that he eventually received an x-ray on November 3, 2018. The next day he 

fell getting out of bed which exacerbated his medical problems. He also states that he was 

transferred on November 5, 2018, before the x-ray results were received or he could receive 

Case 3:19-cv-04586-JD Document 14 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

surgery. However, plaintiff has also separately submitted two pages of medical records (Docket 

No. 13) that contradict some of his assertions. On October 10, 2018, plaintiff received medical 

imaging for his back from Napa State Hospital. Docket No. 13 at 2-3. It appears that medical 

personnel did respond sooner to his request for imaging of his back. The imaging found only mid 

degenerative changes but no lumbar compression fracture or destructive process. Id.

Plaintiff has again failed to identify any specific defendant. He states that the defendant 

who told him that he never requested treatment is named Sarah. Plaintiff must provide more 

information to identify this defendant and describe how she violated his rights. He must describe 

the medical treatment that was denied by this defendant and how she was deliberately indifferent. 

Simply that she told him he did not request treatment is insufficient. Plaintiff must provide more 

information about defendant’s actions and his medical condition and what surgery should have 

been provided. Regarding his other allegations he must identify specific defendants. Only stating 

that unidentified defendants denied medical care without identifying the defendants or the medical 

care is insufficient to state a claim.

CONCLUSION

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The second 

amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and 

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces 

the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the 

original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the 

dismissal of this case.

2. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of 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 for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

Case 3:19-cv-04586-JD Document 14 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04586-JD Document 14 Filed 02/07/20 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEWEL E DYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04586-JD 

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 February 7, 2020, 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.

Jewel E Dyer ID: 071196-0

Atascadero State Hospital

P.O. Box 7001

Atascadero, CA 93423 

Dated: February 7, 2020

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-04586-JD Document 14 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5 of 5