United States District Court, E.D. California
FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN
SCREENING ORDER ECF No. 1
Plaintiff
Bill Keck is a civil detainee proceeding without counsel and
without prepayment of fees in this civil rights action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's
complaint, ECF No. 1, is before the court for screening under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). I have screened plaintiff's
complaint and find that it contains insufficient detail to
state a claim, though I give plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint within 30 days. Should plaintiff wish to
amend, he should include more detail on the actions of
defendant, the events giving rise to a constitutional
violation, and the harm suffered.
SCREENING
AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
A
complaint must contain a short and plain statement that
plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), and
provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face, ” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility
standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal
conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, ” the complaint states no claim.
Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a
precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan
Reg'l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir.
2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a
“claim”-a set of “allegations that give
rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa
v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir.
2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).
The
court must construe a pro se litigant's complaint
liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se
litigant's complaint “if it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes
v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.
2017). However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a
civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of
the claim that were not initially pled.'” Bruns
v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257
(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673
F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).
DISCUSSION
Threshold
Requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Section
1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a
right secured by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. §
1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S.Ct. 911,
916 (2017). To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff
must show that a defendant acting under color of state law
caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by federal
law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Soo Park v.
Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). The
plaintiff can satisfy the causation requirement by showing
either (1) the defendant's “personal
involvement” in the alleged deprivation or (2) a
“sufficient causal connection” between the
defendant's conduct as a supervisor and the alleged
deprivation. See King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885
F.3d 548, 559 (9th Cir. 2018).
Plaintiff's
complaint includes insufficient detail to link the defendant
to a deprivation of plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff's
entire description of the facts underlying his claim is as
follows: “There are numerous peers, [registered nurses,
and psychological technicians that] have observed my constant
need to have an [Americans with Disabilities Act] item to be
issued for stability and walking. This so-called doctor
refuses to even discuss this nor have me assessed for this or
need for it.” ECF No. 1 at 4. If plaintiff files an
amended complaint, he should focus in detail on the personal
actions of the defendant-rather than rely on the assumed
knowledge of parties not before the court.
In
addition, plaintiff may wish to consider some relevant
constitutional guideposts. While “persons who have been
involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate
treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose
conditions of confinement are designed to punish, ”
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982), the
analogous Eighth Amendment standard may still be used as a
benchmark for unconstitutional conduct, see generally
Smith v. Solano Cty., No. 2:11-cv-142, 2013 WL 3930730,
at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2013). To succeed on an analogous
Eighth Amendment claim concerning medical treatment, a
plaintiff would need to show that a medical need was
“serious” by demonstrating that a failure to
treat “could result in further significant injury or
the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And a
plaintiff would need to show that the defendant's
response was deliberately indifferent by showing “a
purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain
or possible medical need” and “harm caused by the
indifference.” Id.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
I have
screened plaintiff's complaint and find that it fails to
state a cognizable claim against any defendant. Plaintiff may
file an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with this
suit. An amended complaint would need to allege what each
defendant did and why those actions violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights. If plaintiff fails to amend his
complaint within thirty days, I will issue findings and
recommendations that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed
for the reasons stated in this order.
Should
plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, [1] the amended
complaint should be brief, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), but must state
what actions each named defendant took that deprived
plaintiff of constitutional or other federal rights. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297
F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set forth
“sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). Plaintiff must allege that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
See Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff should note
that a short, concise statement in which the allegations are
ordered chronologically will help the court identify his
claims. Plaintiff should describe how each defendant wronged
him, the circumstances surrounding each of the claimed
violations, and any harm he suffered.
If
plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended
complaint will supersede the original complaint. See
Lacey v. Maricopa County,693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th
Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint
must be complete on its face without reference to the prior
pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an
amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer
serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as
in an original complaint, plaintiff must assert each claim
and allege each defendant's ...