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.

Bran v. Yuba County Jail

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 9, 2019

GUILLERMO ALEXANDER BRAN, Plaintiff,
v.
YUBA COUNTY JAIL, et. al., Defendant.

          ORDER

          DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) and Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and First Amendment.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require complaints contain a “…short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)). 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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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).

         Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To 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 (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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572F.3d at 969

         II. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff has named four defendants: (1) Yuba County Jail, (2) I.C.E. Detention Medical Staff Administration, (3) Nurse Sulma, and (4) C.O. Houston. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and First Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he was transferred to immigration detention located in the Yuba County jail. While there, Plaintiff asserts he suffered serious dental pain that was left untreated for several months. Plaintiff claims he broke his toe on his right foot when he fell down from a bunk bed and that he received inadequate medical attention thereafter. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sulma refused to provide him an x-ray or an ice pack, and instead told him to fill out a medical request form because “that isn't an emergency.” After Plaintiff filled out the medical request form he contends he still never received treatment. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Houston then denied him a grievance from and threatened to write Plaintiff up for “no reason at all.” Plaintiff further alleges Defendant Houston “acted with discrimination by use [of] verbal misconduct against Plaintiff.”

         Plaintiff alleges on or about September 27, 2018, he was transferred to Sacramento immigration court by ICE officials, who failed to provide him with his medication for a chronic medical condition. Plaintiff alleges ICE officials failed to provide him this medication on two additional occasion-October 1, 2018, and November 2, 2018. Plaintiff claims this caused him to choke, stop breathing for one minute, vomit, have chronic stomach pain, and acid reflux.

         III. ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Sulma is sufficient to pass screening. Plaintiff's remaining claims fail to meet the pleading standard outlined in Rule 8.

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require complaints contain a “…short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1)). Claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because a plaintiff must allege, with at least some degree of particularity, overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, to 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

         Here, Plaintiff fails to meet the pleading standard as to all of his claims except the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Sulma. Plaintiff's remaining claims fail to tie an individual defendant with an alleged constitutional violation. Rather, Plaintiff simply alleges that “Defendants” violated his rights, without specifying which Defendant violated the stated constitutional right or how the specific Defendant violated the stated constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff fails to link individual Defendants to specific constitutional violations, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Rule 8 pleading standard. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). For that reason, these claims cannot proceed past screening. However, Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend.

         IV. ...


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.