Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090305_0003473.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-05-29 13:35:55
Document Index: 518698808

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983']

| Sullivan v. Solano County Jail
Sullivan v. Solano County Jail
CLAYTON SULLIVAN, PLAINTIFF,v.SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. These payments shall be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants Marsh and Lin pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Also named as a defendant is Solano County. The only claim against this defendant appears to be that if an indigent inmate, like plaintiff, has heartburn or a headache, he has to fill out a sick call slip in order to receive ibuprofen or antacid. Plaintiff alleges that it can take days to receive these basic medications. The court construes this claim as an Eighth Amendment claim.
Plaintiff does not allege that he, himself, has been denied timely access to ibuprofen or antacid. Nor does plaintiff allege the type of illness that he required these medications for. For example, it is unclear whether plaintiff suffered from a garden-variety headache or a migraine headache. In addition, plaintiff does not allege whether he suffered from regular heartburn or a more serious illness. In addition, plaintiff does not allege for how long he was required to wait for these medications and how often he has been required to wait.
A litigant demonstrates standing by showing that he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 1017 (1998). To demonstrate constitutional standing, a plaintiff must prove (1) that he or she suffered an injury in fact; (2) the existence of a causal connection specifically traceable to the unconstitutional conduct of defendants; and (3) the likelihood that a favorable outcome will redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992).
Because plaintiff does not allege that he, personally, suffered an injury as a result of the challenged policy, the court does not find that he has stated a colorable claim against defendant Solano County. In addition, the court cannot find that plaintiff has stated a colorable claim because of his failure to describe the nature and extent as well as the frequency of the injury he suffered.
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).