1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01520-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., ECF No. 5 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR 17 (2) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 18 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE DISMISSED 19 ECF No. 4 20 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 21 22 Plaintiff Brandon Eugene Hunter is an inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil 23 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants—Adult Correctional 24 Health Services, Sacramento County, an unnamed sheriff’s deputy, and an unnamed nurse— 25 violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care.1 His 26
27 1 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on August 29, 2022, and then filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2022. See ECF Nos. 1 & 4. I will treat the complaint filed on August 28 30, 2022, as the operative complaint. 1 allegations are not cognizable. I will grant plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint, 2 and I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 3 Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions will not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 Discussion 27 Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied treatment for a shoulder injury, hemorrhoids, and 28 a fungal infection affecting a toe. ECF No. 4 at 3-4. He claims that his pain prescriptions are 1 insufficient to alleviate his chronic pain. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also alleges that an unnamed 2 defendant sheriff’s deputy caused his scheduled MRI to be canceled because the deputy 3 inaccurately told the unnamed defendant nurse that plaintiff had refused the MRI. Id. at 3-4. 4 Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, do not state cognizable claims against defendants. 5 First, plaintiff cannot maintain his claim against Sacramento County’s Adult Correctional Health 6 because the entity is not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Sullivan v. Adult Corr. 7 Health Care, No. 2:22-cv-1572 KJN P, 2022 WL 4586300, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2022) (finding 8 that “local government sub-units” are not generally considered proper defendants under section 9 1983 and dismissing Adult Correctional Health Care from the action). Further, plaintiff’s 10 complaint fails to state a claim against Sacramento County because plaintiff does not allege that 11 his civil rights were violated due to a policy or custom. See Villegas v. Golroy Garlic Festival 12 Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, a municipality is liable under Monell [v. 13 Dep’t of Soc.l Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)] only if a municipal policy or custom was 14 the ‘moving force’ behind the constitutional violation.”); Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 15 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A municipality may not be sued under § 1983 solely because an 16 injury was inflicted by its employees or agents . . . .”). 17 Additionally, plaintiff’s allegations do not state a deliberate indifference claim against the 18 unnamed defendant nurse.2 To succeed on a claim for medical deliberate indifference, plaintiff 19 must allege that the defendant consciously disregarded an excessive risk to his health. Jackson v. 20 McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff merely alleges that his appointment was 21 canceled because the nurse was led to believe that he refused the appointment. ECF No. 4 at 4. 22 23
24 2 Plaintiff does not state whether he was a pretrial detainee during the events at issue. If he was, then his challenges to the conditions of his confinement would be analyzed under the 25 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, instead of the Eighth Amendment. See Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[C]laims for violations of the right to 26 adequate medical care brought by pretrial detainees against individual defendants under the 27 Fourteenth Amendment must be evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference standard.”) (internal marks omitted). The result of the analysis herein remains the same in both 28 circumstances. 1 Accidents or negligence do not amount to the wanton infliction of pain required to state a 2 deliberate indifference claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON EUGENE HUNTER, Case No. 2:22-cv-01520-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., ECF No. 5 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR 17 (2) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 18 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE DISMISSED 19 ECF No. 4 20 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 21 22 Plaintiff Brandon Eugene Hunter is an inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil 23 rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants—Adult Correctional 24 Health Services, Sacramento County, an unnamed sheriff’s deputy, and an unnamed nurse— 25 violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care.1 His 26
27 1 Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on August 29, 2022, and then filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2022. See ECF Nos. 1 & 4. I will treat the complaint filed on August 28 30, 2022, as the operative complaint. 1 allegations are not cognizable. I will grant plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint, 2 and I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. 3 Screening and Pleading Requirements 4 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 5 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 6 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 7 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 8 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 9 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 11 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 12 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions will not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 13 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 14 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 15 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 16 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 17 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 18 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 19 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 20 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 21 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 22 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 23 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 24 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 25 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 26 Discussion 27 Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied treatment for a shoulder injury, hemorrhoids, and 28 a fungal infection affecting a toe. ECF No. 4 at 3-4. He claims that his pain prescriptions are 1 insufficient to alleviate his chronic pain. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also alleges that an unnamed 2 defendant sheriff’s deputy caused his scheduled MRI to be canceled because the deputy 3 inaccurately told the unnamed defendant nurse that plaintiff had refused the MRI. Id. at 3-4. 4 Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true, do not state cognizable claims against defendants. 5 First, plaintiff cannot maintain his claim against Sacramento County’s Adult Correctional Health 6 because the entity is not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Sullivan v. Adult Corr. 7 Health Care, No. 2:22-cv-1572 KJN P, 2022 WL 4586300, *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2022) (finding 8 that “local government sub-units” are not generally considered proper defendants under section 9 1983 and dismissing Adult Correctional Health Care from the action). Further, plaintiff’s 10 complaint fails to state a claim against Sacramento County because plaintiff does not allege that 11 his civil rights were violated due to a policy or custom. See Villegas v. Golroy Garlic Festival 12 Ass’n, 541 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, a municipality is liable under Monell [v. 13 Dep’t of Soc.l Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)] only if a municipal policy or custom was 14 the ‘moving force’ behind the constitutional violation.”); Long v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 15 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A municipality may not be sued under § 1983 solely because an 16 injury was inflicted by its employees or agents . . . .”). 17 Additionally, plaintiff’s allegations do not state a deliberate indifference claim against the 18 unnamed defendant nurse.2 To succeed on a claim for medical deliberate indifference, plaintiff 19 must allege that the defendant consciously disregarded an excessive risk to his health. Jackson v. 20 McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff merely alleges that his appointment was 21 canceled because the nurse was led to believe that he refused the appointment. ECF No. 4 at 4. 22 23
24 2 Plaintiff does not state whether he was a pretrial detainee during the events at issue. If he was, then his challenges to the conditions of his confinement would be analyzed under the 25 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, instead of the Eighth Amendment. See Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[C]laims for violations of the right to 26 adequate medical care brought by pretrial detainees against individual defendants under the 27 Fourteenth Amendment must be evaluated under an objective deliberate indifference standard.”) (internal marks omitted). The result of the analysis herein remains the same in both 28 circumstances. 1 Accidents or negligence do not amount to the wanton infliction of pain required to state a 2 deliberate indifference claim. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). 3 Plaintiff’s allegations are similarly too conclusory to state a cognizable deliberate 4 indifference claim against the unnamed defendant deputy. Deliberate indifference only applies 5 when a defendant is subjectively aware of a risk to the plaintiff. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 6 825, 837 (1994). “To establish a prison official’s deliberate indifference, an inmate must show 7 that the official was aware of a risk to the inmate’s health or safety and that the official 8 deliberately disregarded the risk.” Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff 9 alleges that the unnamed defendant deputy lied to a nurse, resulting in the cancellation of his 10 MRI, for the purpose of preventing the MRI. ECF No. 4 at 3. But plaintiff does not allege that 11 the defendant deputy had knowledge either of his injuries or of any health risks that might result 12 from the denial or delay of an MRI. Further, plaintiff does not explain how his alleged need for 13 an MRI was a “serious medical need” or how he was harmed by the denial or delay. See Jett v. 14 Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a claim of deliberate indifference to 15 serious medical needs requires a “serious medical need”). 16 I will give plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended 17 complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa 18 Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended complaint 19 must be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 20 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. 21 Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff must assert each claim 22 and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be 23 titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If plaintiff does 24 not file an amended complaint, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is granted. 27 28 1 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an amended 2 | complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. If he selects the latter 3 | option, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 4 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 5 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _ December 1, 2022 Q_—_—. 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28