Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110603_0007814.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 07:50:49
Document Index: 500777637

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

Fraisure E. Smith, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that he is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security therefor. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir.1978).
The court finds that, for the limited purposes of § 1915 screening, the complaint states cognizable claims for relief against defendants Firman, K. Cordero, and Corey.
The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against Solano County. Municipalities (and their departments) may be sued under § 1983 only upon a showing that an official policy or custom caused the constitutional tort. See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977); Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Haugen v. Brosseau, 351 F.3d 372, 393 (9th Cir. 2003) (granting summary judgment to city and city police department under Monell). "A local government entity cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless the plaintiff alleges that the action inflicting injury flowed from either an explicitly adopted or a tacitly authorized [governmental] policy." Ortez v. Wash. County, 88 F.3d 804, 811 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation and quotations omitted) (alteration in original). "[L]ocal governments, like any other § 1983 'person,' ... may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental 'custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels." Monell, 436 U.S. at 690--91.
Plaintiff does not allege that Solano County has an official policy of denying medical treatment to inmates. Nor would such an allegation meet the pleading requirements in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, _ U.S. _,129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009) (plaintiff must plead facts that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."). Thus, it appears that granting leave to amend claims against Solano County would be futile. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1128 (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a claim). Defendant Solano County should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.
2. Service is appropriate for defendants Firman, K. Cordero, and Corey.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of ...