Gomez v. Santa Cruz County Jail Sheriff's Administration

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-08691
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSE URIEL GOMEZ, Case No. 24-cv-08691-RMI

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

10 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY JAIL SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Standard of Review 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 20 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 21 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 22 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 26 statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 27 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 1 cause of action and state conclusions; rather a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 2 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 3 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 4 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court recently explained this standard: “[w]hile 5 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 6 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 7 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 10 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 11 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 12 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 Legal Claims 14 Plaintiff states that he received inadequate medical care at Santra Cruz County Jail. 15 A claim for a violation of a detainee’s right to adequate medical care arises under the 16 Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 17 F.3d 1118, 1122 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2018). The claim is evaluated under an objective deliberate 18 indifference standard.

19 [T]he elements of a pretrial detainee’s medical care claim against an individual defendant under the due process clause of the Fourteenth 20 Amendment are: (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) 21 those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available 22 measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk 23 involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused 24 the plaintiff’s injuries. 25 Id. at 1125. For the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be objectively 26 unreasonable – “a test that will necessarily turn[] on the facts and circumstances of each particular 27 care.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A lack of due care by a state official is 1 articulated in Gordon requires the plaintiff to prove more than negligence, but less than subjective 2 intent – something akin to reckless disregard. Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125. 3 Plaintiff states that on June 24, 2024, he had a fainting episode and hit his head on a metal 4 bar that caused serious injuries. He was treated by medical staff but alleges that they did not 5 follow proper procedures. As a result of the inadequate medical care, he is suffering from head 6 pain, migraines, blurry vision, sensitivity to light and sound, difficulty sleeping, dizziness, 7 pressure in his skull, and fainting episodes. 8 Plaintiff names as Defendants, NaphCare which contracts to provide medical care at the 9 jail, Dr. Fratianni, Nurse Hewitt, Santa Cruz County Sherif’s Office, Chief Freitas, and Santa Cruz 10 County. Yet, Plaintiff fails to describe the specific actions of the Defendants and how they 11 provided inadequate medical care. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. While 12 Plaintiff appears to state a claim, he must identify the actions of the specific Defendants and 13 describe how they provided inadequate medical care and how it violated his constitutional rights. 14 CONCLUSION 15 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards 16 set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date 17 this order is filed, and it must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 18 words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 19 replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See 20 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material 21 from the original Complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result 22 in dismissal of this case. 23 2. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 24 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk, headered “Notice of 25 Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 26 may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 41(b). 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: February 10, 2025 3 4 ROBERT M. ILLMAN 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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