Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20101103_0001782.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 13:54:53
Document Index: 619863628

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983']

| Tran v. Gore
Tran v. Gore
HOANG MINH TRAN, CDCR # AA-5994 PLAINTIFF,v.WILLIAM GORE; SCHROEDER; FLYNN; ESPINOZA; JONES; JOHN DOES; SHAWCROFT; DOUGLAS, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND (2) DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)
Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
First, Plaintiff names Defendant Gore as a Defendant but fails to allege any specific factual allegations pertaining to Defendant Gore in his role as San Diego County Sheriff. There is no respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1993). Instead, "[t]he 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) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976)). In order to avoid the respondeat superior bar, Plaintiff must allege personal acts by each individual Defendant which have a direct causal connection to the constitutional violation at issue. See Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 483 (9th Cir. 1986); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Second, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant Jones liable for his alleged failure to properly investigate an incident in which Plaintiff claims that excessive force was used against him. However, Plaintiff claim against Defendant Jones for allegedly failing to properly investigate his excessive force claims fails to state a constitutional claim under § 1983. See Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that an inadequate investigation alone does not "involve[] the deprivation of a protected right," but must involve "another recognized constitutional right.").
Third, Plaintiff claims that Defendants "John Does" violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to provide him with a "bedroll mattress" and causing his cell to be cold. See Compl. at 5. In his Complaint, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is a pre-trial detainee or whether he is serving a sentence following a criminal conviction. The Ninth Circuit has noted that while different Constitutional provisions may be applied dependent on whether a plaintiff's claim arise before or after conviction, a "pretrial detainees' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment," and therefore, "the same standards apply." Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); but cf. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that while the Court generally looks to Eighth Amendment cases when reviewing conditions of confinement claims raised by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[i]t is quite possible... that the protections provided pretrial detainees by the Fourteenth Amendment in some instances exceed those provided convicted prisoners by the Eighth Amendment."); see also Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188 n.10).
In order to assert a claim for inadequate medical care, Plaintiff must allege facts which are sufficient to show that each person sued was "deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs." Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Prison officials must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to Plaintiff's pain or medical needs; neither an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care, nor mere negligence or medical malpractice constitutes a constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06.
Here, Plaintiff's inadequate medical care claims fail to allege facts sufficient to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. He fails to adequately allege a serious medical need and he further fails to identify with any specificity how the lack of a "bedroll mattress" has any effect on his alleged serious medical need. Thus, Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Finally, Plaintiff claims that his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment have been denied by the failure to properly process his administrative grievances. See Compl. at 6. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that: "[n]o state shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. "The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty and property." Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). State statutes and prison regulations may grant prisoners liberty or property interests sufficient to invoke due process protection. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). To state a procedural due process claim, Plaintiff must allege: "(1) a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government; [and] (3) lack of process." Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000).
For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
III CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:.
4. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) & § 1915A(b).
5. Plaintiff is granted forty five (45) days from the date this Order is "Filed" in which to file an amended complaint which addresses each deficiency of pleading noted above. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. CA. CIV.LR. 15.1. Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a court approved form § 1983 complaint to Plaintiff.