United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS
M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
is plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 15).
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).
Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that
complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This means that 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 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, it is impossible
for the court to conduct the screening required by law when
the allegations are vague and conclusory.
Guillermo Alexander Bran names the following as defendants
(1) Yuba County Jail, (2) Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) Detention Medical Staff Administration, (3) Nurse
Sulma, and (4) C.O. Houston. See ECF No. 15, pg. 1.
is currently an inmate at Yuba County Jail in Marysville,
California. Id. at 4. On April 26, 2018, ICE agents
transported plaintiff from Soledad State Prison. Id.
The prison's medical staff provided him with medication
for thirty days, but the ICE agents confiscated it.
Id. That same day, plaintiff was moved to an ICE
detention center in Yuba County Jail, California.
Id. He informed the jail staff of his medical
condition and requested his needed medication the following
day. Id. However, he did not receive this medication
until May 1, 2018. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this
five-day delay caused him great distress in the form of
chronic acid reflux, headache, fever, and an inability to
sleep, walk, or eat. Id.
claims that defendant ICE agents transported him to
Immigration Court in Sacramento without his medication on
several occasions. Id. Plaintiff attributes this to
a failure on the part of the Yuba County Jail medical staff
to inform the ICE agents of his need for the medication.
Id. Plaintiff maintains that he also suffered from
serious dental pain, did not receive appropriate dental
attention, and continues to suffer from this pain.
Id. Plaintiff's dental problems were allegedly
exacerbated when a doctor erroneously removed one of his
teeth. Id. Plaintiff further asserts that he
submitted multiple requests for eye glasses, but that his
receipt of those glasses was delayed until July 2018. Because
of this delay, plaintiff was unable to work on his
immigration case due to his poor vision and difficulty in
writing legal documents. Id.
to plaintiff, on October 8, 2018, plaintiff fell down from
his bunk and broke his right toe. He was prescribed ibuprofen
for seven days but did not receive any X-ray scans nor ice
packs. Id. On October 10, 2018, defendants Sulma and
Houston worked together to provide inmates medication in
plaintiff's L-dormitory. Plaintiff requested an ice-pack
but defendant Sulma denied the request. Id. On
November 2, 2018, after his return from Immigration Court to
Yuba County Jail, plaintiff made a request to Houston for his
medication. Houston told him he would provide it within 30
minutes. However, when Houston returned with Sulma, they did
not provide him the medication, stating that he was off the
time schedule. Id. On November 3, 2018 at 4:45 am,
plaintiff started to choke in his bunk. Id.
Plaintiff vomited and suffered chronic stomach pain and acid
reflux due to Houston's failure to provide him the needed
medication the day before. Id.
Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Sulma and Houston
are sufficient to pass screening. However, Plaintiff's
remaining claims fail to meet the pleading standard outlined
in Rule 8 as to any of the other named defendants. Plaintiff
also fails to adequately allege liability as against
defendant Yuba County Jail.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints
contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This means that 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.
this pleading standard, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection
or link between the actions of the named defendants and the
alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep't of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode,
423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects'
another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within
the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act,
participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to
perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes
the deprivation of which complaint is made.”
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement
of official personnel in civil rights violations are not
sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d
266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set
forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's
causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation.
See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.
plaintiff fails to meet the pleading standard as to all of
his claims except the Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendants Sulma and Houston. Besides providing some
clarification as to the alleged misconduct of Sulma and
Houston, plaintiff's amended complaint remains unchanged.
As such this ...