United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND (ECF NO. 1)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jose Valdez (“Plaintiff”), a former Stanislaus
County Jail inmate, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed a consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on
May 11, 2016. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff's complaint, filed
on April 20, 2016, is currently before the Court for
screening. (ECF No. 1.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
allegations concern events that transpired while he was
detained in the Stanislaus County Jail. As defendants,
Plaintiff names Lisa Larranaga, a Medical Program Manager,
and Adam Christianson, Stanislaus County Sheriff. In summary,
Plaintiff alleges that he involved in a fight on June 5,
2015, and was struck by a Rapid Containment Baton twice, once
on the back of his left arm and once on his left thumb joint.
Plaintiff contends that his left thumb joint was fractured
and healed improperly. Plaintiff complains that he was denied
necessary medical treatment for his injuries by various
nurses, including LVN Lenette and LVN Francesca. As a result,
Plaintiff filed a grievance, and was interviewed on September
11, 2015 by RN Nadaline Bergman. Nurse Bergman ordered an
x-ray and prescribed physical therapy. Plaintiff was x-rayed
on September 12, 2015, and received a response to his
grievance on September 16, 2015. According to the response,
the x-ray showed a healed fracture at the location of
Plaintiff's concern, which had been missed in the first
x-ray, but the grievance was denied.
September 20, 2015, Plaintiff appealed to Defendant
Larranaga, the Medical Program Manager. Plaintiff received a
denial of his grievance on November 9, 2015. In the interim,
on October 7, 2015, Nurse Bergman took photos of
Plaintiff's joint for referral to orthopaedic. On
November 2, 2015, Nurse Bergman informed Plaintiff that
orthopaedic was happy with how Plaintiff's joint had
healed, but a third x-ray was taken on November 10, 2015. The
x-ray technician informed Plaintiff that the broken hand had
asserts claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs and excessive force in the use of the baton by Deputy
fails to state a cognizable claim against the two named
defendants in this action. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se,
he will be given leave to amend his complaint to cure the
identified deficiencies. To assist Plaintiff, he will be
provided with the relevant pleading and legal standards that
appear applicable to his claims.
names Adam Christianson, Stanislaus County Sheriff, as a
defendant in this action. However, Plaintiff has not alleged
that Sheriff Christianson was personally involved in any
constitutional deprivation. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to
hold Sheriff Christianson (or any other defendant) liable
based upon their supervisory positions, he may not do so.
Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the
actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory
of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77;
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 ...