1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DAVIN WILLIE FLORES, JR., Case No. 21-cv-07851-VKD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 10 v. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(A); GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 11 E. MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants. 12
13 14 Pro se plaintiff Davin Willie Flores, Jr., a state prisoner, filed this civil rights action against 15 defendants “Classification Sergeant” E. Murphy, “Classification” Deputy E. Arteaga, and “West 16 County and Martinez Detention facility medical staff” based on their actions while Mr. Flores was 17 housed at the Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”). Dkt. No. 1. The Court granted Mr. Flores’s 18 request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 11. 19 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 23 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 25 (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 26 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 1 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 2 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Plaintiff’s Claims 5 Mr. Flores alleges that he suffered a gunshot wound to his right knee and has required 6 crutches since May 2021. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. He says that on September 7, 2021, following an 7 altercation with another inmate, he was housed in “D module B Side” at MDF. Id. He says that D 8 module has no “handicap accessibility,” including no ramps. Id. Mr. Flores says that because of 9 the lack of accessibility he almost fell when trying to take a shower. Id. In addition, he says that 10 his knee has been getting worse every day since he was moved to D module, and he twice had to 11 have fluid removed from his knee joints. Id. Mr. Flores claims that he is unlawfully housed in a 12 unit that he cannot safely navigate due to his physical disabilities. Id. Mr. Flores seeks 13 declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. Id. 14 1. Eighth Amendment 15 Liberally construing Mr. Flores’s complaint, the Court understands that he wishes to state a 16 claim under the Eighth Amendment for unsafe conditions of confinement. The Eighth 17 Amendment imposes a duty on state prison officials to provide all prisoners with the basic 18 necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. See 19 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social 20 Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). A 21 prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation 22 alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 23 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official acted with “deliberate indifference,” id. 24 Furthermore, a prison official cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an 25 inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the standard for criminal recklessness is met, i.e., 26 the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Id. at 837. The 27 official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 1 Here, Mr. Flores’s allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim because 2 they do not show or permit the Court to infer that a named defendant acted with deliberate 3 indifference because the defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mr. Flores’s 4 safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 837. With respect to defendants Murphy and Arteaga, Mr. 5 Flores does not explain their involvement with his placement in D module or describe what makes 6 them responsible for subjecting him to unsafe conditions. In fact, Mr. Flores’s statement of claim 7 does not mention either defendant at all. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Mr. Flores cannot state an Eighth 8 Amendment claim against the “medical staff” as a whole. He must connect the alleged Eighth 9 Amendment deprivation with specific medical staff member(s) and describe each person’s conduct 10 or role in the deprivation. 11 Mr. Flores may amend his complaint to attempt to state sufficient facts to support a claim 12 that defendants Murphy, Arteaga, and specifically-identified medical staff are responsible for 13 violating his right to safe conditions under the Eighth Amendment. 14 2. Americans with Disabilities Act 15 Mr. Flores may be able to state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 16 Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., which provides that “no qualified individual with a 17 disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the 18 benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination 19 by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II protects “a qualified individual with a disability.” 20 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In the context of the ADA, the term “disability” means: “(A) a physical or 21 mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the person; 22 (B) having a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 23 Id. § 12102(1). For purposes of § 12102(a), “major life activities include, but are not limited to, 24 caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, 25 lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, 26 and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). 27 The elements of a claim for relief under Title II are that: (1) the plaintiff is an individual 1 some public entity’s services, programs, or activities; (3) the plaintiff was either excluded from 2 participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs or activities, or was 3 otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or 4 discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DAVIN WILLIE FLORES, JR., Case No. 21-cv-07851-VKD
9 Plaintiff, ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 10 v. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(A); GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND 11 E. MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants. 12
13 14 Pro se plaintiff Davin Willie Flores, Jr., a state prisoner, filed this civil rights action against 15 defendants “Classification Sergeant” E. Murphy, “Classification” Deputy E. Arteaga, and “West 16 County and Martinez Detention facility medical staff” based on their actions while Mr. Flores was 17 housed at the Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”). Dkt. No. 1. The Court granted Mr. Flores’s 18 request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 11. 19 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 23 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 25 (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 26 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). 27 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 1 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 2 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A. Plaintiff’s Claims 5 Mr. Flores alleges that he suffered a gunshot wound to his right knee and has required 6 crutches since May 2021. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. He says that on September 7, 2021, following an 7 altercation with another inmate, he was housed in “D module B Side” at MDF. Id. He says that D 8 module has no “handicap accessibility,” including no ramps. Id. Mr. Flores says that because of 9 the lack of accessibility he almost fell when trying to take a shower. Id. In addition, he says that 10 his knee has been getting worse every day since he was moved to D module, and he twice had to 11 have fluid removed from his knee joints. Id. Mr. Flores claims that he is unlawfully housed in a 12 unit that he cannot safely navigate due to his physical disabilities. Id. Mr. Flores seeks 13 declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. Id. 14 1. Eighth Amendment 15 Liberally construing Mr. Flores’s complaint, the Court understands that he wishes to state a 16 claim under the Eighth Amendment for unsafe conditions of confinement. The Eighth 17 Amendment imposes a duty on state prison officials to provide all prisoners with the basic 18 necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety. See 19 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social 20 Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). A 21 prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation 22 alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 23 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official acted with “deliberate indifference,” id. 24 Furthermore, a prison official cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an 25 inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the standard for criminal recklessness is met, i.e., 26 the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Id. at 837. The 27 official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 1 Here, Mr. Flores’s allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim because 2 they do not show or permit the Court to infer that a named defendant acted with deliberate 3 indifference because the defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mr. Flores’s 4 safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 837. With respect to defendants Murphy and Arteaga, Mr. 5 Flores does not explain their involvement with his placement in D module or describe what makes 6 them responsible for subjecting him to unsafe conditions. In fact, Mr. Flores’s statement of claim 7 does not mention either defendant at all. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Mr. Flores cannot state an Eighth 8 Amendment claim against the “medical staff” as a whole. He must connect the alleged Eighth 9 Amendment deprivation with specific medical staff member(s) and describe each person’s conduct 10 or role in the deprivation. 11 Mr. Flores may amend his complaint to attempt to state sufficient facts to support a claim 12 that defendants Murphy, Arteaga, and specifically-identified medical staff are responsible for 13 violating his right to safe conditions under the Eighth Amendment. 14 2. Americans with Disabilities Act 15 Mr. Flores may be able to state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 16 Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., which provides that “no qualified individual with a 17 disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the 18 benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination 19 by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II protects “a qualified individual with a disability.” 20 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In the context of the ADA, the term “disability” means: “(A) a physical or 21 mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the person; 22 (B) having a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 23 Id. § 12102(1). For purposes of § 12102(a), “major life activities include, but are not limited to, 24 caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, 25 lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, 26 and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). 27 The elements of a claim for relief under Title II are that: (1) the plaintiff is an individual 1 some public entity’s services, programs, or activities; (3) the plaintiff was either excluded from 2 participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs or activities, or was 3 otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or 4 discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 5 (9th Cir. 2002); cf. Olmstead v. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 589-91 (1999) (essentially same showing 6 required to state cause of action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act). 7 If Mr. Flores intends to plead a claim for violation of the ADA, he must allege sufficient 8 facts as to each of the elements described above against the responsible “public entity.” “Public 9 entity” includes any state or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district 10 or other instrumentality of a state or states or local government. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) & 11 (B). It includes state correctional facilities, see Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 210 12 (1998); Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 1997), and local law enforcement 13 agencies, see Lee v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here, the MDF is a 14 detention facility operated by Contra Costa County. 15 Mr. Flores may amend his complaint to include an ADA claim by setting forth sufficient 16 allegations as all necessary elements and by naming the appropriate defendant or defendants. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 After screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the 19 complaint as pled fails to state a claim as to all named defendants. Mr. Flores may file an 20 amended complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies discussed above by no later than March 21 25, 2022. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this 22 order, Case No. C 21-cv-07851 VKD, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first 23 page. If using the court form complaint, Mr. Flores must answer all the questions on the form in 24 order for the action to proceed. 25 Mr. Flores is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, the 26 latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 27 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in an amended complaint are no longer 1 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 2 If Mr. Flores fails to file an amended complaint in time, or the amended complaint fails to 3 cure all defects described above, the Court may issue an order reassigning the case to a district 4 || judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 5 claim. 6 The Clerk of the Court shall include two copies of the Court’s form complaint with a copy 7 of this order to Mr. Flores. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: February 14, 2022 10 . 28 □ 11 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 12 United States Magistrate Judge
15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28