Flores v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office Santa Rita Jail

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-09431
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDRES VILLA FLORES, Case No. 24-cv-09431-LJC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 9 v. TO AMEND

10 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE SANTA RITA JAIL, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Andres Villa Flores, a prisoner at the Santa Rita Jail proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 14 complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against “Alameda County Sheriff’s Office staff at Santa 15 Rita Jail,” “Wellpath Medical Services staff RNs/doctors,” and “Stanford Health Care staff 16 RNs/doctors.” Flores has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which is granted 17 in a separate order. The court now addresses the claims asserted in Flores’s complaint. 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. Standard of Review 20 A federal court must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a 21 governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, to dismiss any claims that: 22 (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) 23 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Pro 24 se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 25 (9th Cir. 1988). 26 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 27 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 1 42, 48 (1988). 2 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 3 plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions actually and proximately caused the deprivation of 4 a federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 5 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives 6 another of a constitutional right within the meaning of Section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 7 participates in another’s affirmative act or fails to perform an act which he is legally required to 8 do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Id. at 633. 9 II. Flores’s Allegations 10 Flores alleges that he fell and injured himself on July 30, 3024 because he is mobility 11 impaired and slipped on ankle chains while exiting a transport van or bus with no handrails. At the 12 time, he was also confined in waist chains that were bunched up and locked with a square- 13 cornered master lock at his lower back. While exiting a shower on November 28, 2024, Flores 14 slipped while holding his clothes in his hands, and fractured his right fist while trying to stop 15 himself from hitting the ground. Medical staff would not set it and cast it. Flores states: “Mental 16 thought of staff here and medical show some kind of bias and prejudice causing gross negligence 17 under the color of state law. (No floor grid).” 18 Flores seeks compensatory damages. 19 III. Analysis 20 I. Medical Claims 21 The Fourteenth Amendment protects pretrial detainees from deliberate indifference on the 22 part of jail staff to their serious medical needs. The elements of the claim are: 23 “(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put 24 the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant 25 did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high 26 degree of risk involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant 27 caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” 1 been objectively unreasonable—the lack of due care is not enough. See Alexander v. Nguyen, 78 2 F.4th 1140, 1144-46 (9th Cir. 2023). 3 Flores has not identified any appropriate defendants for his claim that he has not received 4 adequate medical treatment. Nor has he provided enough detail about what his injuries are, what 5 treatment he received, what further treatment he needs, or anything else that would allow the 6 reader to assess whether a defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He 7 should identify the specific people who prevented him from getting proper care and explain how 8 they did so. He may name as defendants specific medical practitioners or staff from the jail or 9 Wellpath or Stanford Health Care, even if he does not know their names, by naming them as Doe 10 defendants and describing them to the best of his ability. For example, he could name as a Doe 11 defendant “the provider who saw me on November 28,” or “the jail staff person who reviewed my 12 request for disability accommodations,” or “the Stanford nurse who examined me on November 13 28.” He must explain specifically what each individual defendant did to put him at risk of harm. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Based on the foregoing, the court orders as follows: 16 1. Even liberally construed, the allegations do not give rise to any federal claims against 17 the defendants. These claims are dismissed with leave to amend to remedy the deficiencies noted 18 above. 19 2. If Flores wishes to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC), he must do so within twenty- 20 eight days from the date of this order. The FAC must include the caption and civil case number 21 used in this Order and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an 22 amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Flores must include in it all the 23 allegations he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He 24 may not incorporate material from his original complaint or petition by reference. Failure to 25 amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. 26 3. It is Flores’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the court informed of 27 any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of 1 in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 |} 41(b). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: February 11, 2025 5 6 J. CI ROS 7 ed States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28