Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fruits v. Shasta County Sheriff

United States District Court, E.D. California

August 30, 2017

JOHN P. FRUITS, Plaintiff,
v.
SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff is a former pretrial detainee, now a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is before the court.

         II. Screening

         The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

         III. Second Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff's second amended complaint is again difficult to parse, because he has cobbled together a prior pleading (ECF No. 1 at 5-7; 15 at 5-7), without interlineating the appropriate Doe identifiers, and then simply added pages attempting to explain what each Doe defendant did, without including dates or other time frames to connect the two partial pleadings.

         Initially, plaintiff alleges that “the defendant” “failed to protect the plaintiff.” (ECF No. 19 at 4.) He contends that sheriff's deputies violated plaintiff's rights “by not following proper procedure, which is the cause of the action of ‘deliberate indifference.'” (Id.) Plaintiff claims defendants acted “intentional[ly] and or negligently.” (Id.) Plaintiff reiterates the claims he alleged in his first complaint: three incidents (two in 2013 and one in 2014), where he was beaten up by inmates and deputies refused to take plaintiff to medical; and one incident (undated) where a deputy allegedly allowed other inmates to throw feces on plaintiff.

         Plaintiff now attempts to further identify the Doe defendants, as follows:

         Doe #1: Plaintiff alleges that after he was beaten unconscious by two inmates, he contacted Doe #1 who allegedly stated, “go back to your cell you look ok to me.” (ECF No. 19 at 8.) Plaintiff insisted he was injured and needed to go to the hospital, but Doe #1 refused. Plaintiff alleges Doe #1 was “negligent by failing to provide medical treatment for the plaintiff.” (Id.) This incident appears to have occurred in October of 2013. (ECF No. 19 at 5.)

         Doe #2: Plaintiff alleges that after he was moved to another cell, Doe #2, who was aware of the prior beating incident, allowed inmates to enter plaintiff's cell and they dragged plaintiff off his bunk, slammed him into the concrete floor, where he was stomped and kicked into unconsciousness. Once plaintiff came to, he asked Doe #2 why he let the inmates into plaintiff's cell when Doe #2 knew plaintiff had already been attacked, and Doe #2 responded, “I don't know what you are talking about.” (ECF No. 19 at 8.) Plaintiff stated that he needed to go to medical because the MRI determined plaintiff had a concussion. (Id.) However, earlier in the pleading, plaintiff stated that after this incident he was taken to the hospital, where he received an MRI. (ECF No. 19 at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that Doe #2 committed an intentional act by failing to protect plaintiff from further injuries. (ECF No. 19 at 8.) This incident appears to have occurred the day after the first incident in October of 2013. (ECF No. 19 at 5.)

         Doe #3: On some unidentified date, plaintiff was placed in protective custody, and after plaintiff had used the shower, inmates were allowed to throw feces on plaintiff, so plaintiff jumped on the table to get out of their reach. Doe #3 told plaintiff to “get back in front of the cells, ” and “return to [your] cell.” (ECF No. 19 at 9.) Doe #3 let the other inmates out of their cells, and they threw feces under plaintiff's cell door. After hours passed, Doe #3 moved plaintiff to another cell, but plaintiff was still covered in feces and not allowed to clean it off. Plaintiff alleges Doe #3 was “negligent” and caused damage to plaintiff. (Id.)

         Doe #4: While housed in protective custody, Doe #4 moved an inmate into plaintiff's cell. The inmate beat plaintiff into unconsciousness, resulting in plaintiff's third concussion, broken nose, and a compound fracture. Plaintiff pleaded with Doe #4 to take plaintiff to medical, but Doe #4 refused. Plaintiff was unable to breathe and was dizzy. Plaintiff alleges Doe #4 “was negligent in his actions.” (ECF No. 19 at 9.) It appears this incident occurred in February of 2014. (ECF No. 19 at 6.)

         Doe #5: Plaintiff alleges that the shift supervisor was negligent by his lack of supervision of plaintiff because Doe #5 “knew of the incidents that . . . transpired against the plaintiff and failed to correct the violations, he committed an act by submitting documents covering up the incidents that pertained to the plaintiff, thereby his intentional acts caused damage to the plaintiff.” (ECF No. 19 at 10.)

         IV. Discussion

         A. Multiple, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.