(PC) James v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-cv-0063 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 2, 2024, the court recommended that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. Because plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2024, however, the court’s April 2, 2024 findings and recommendations will be vacated. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). As with plaintiff original complaint, plaintiff’s claims in his amended complaint center around the release of at least some of his medical records from some unidentified person at the Sacramento County Jail to attorney Nicole Cahill. Plaintiff identifies three defendants: the County of Sacramento, Ms. Cahill, and the “Medical Records Director” at the Sacramento County Jail. Ms. Cahill works for the law firm Longyear & Larva and represents Sacramento County Jail employees, including medical professionals, in James v. County of Sacramento, 2:22-cv-2193 DAD JDP, another case filed by plaintiff pending in this court. As for the County of Sacramento, municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 585 at 691, 694 (1978). “Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. Plaintiff fails to point to anything suggesting that any of his federal rights were violated through the execution of a County of Sacramento policy or custom. As to Ms. Cahill, apparently she obtained and reviewed some of plaintiff’s medical records from the Sacramento County Jail. Plaintiff fails to show how this amounts to a violation of any federal right. Plaintiff asserts a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but that is not the case as the records of the Sacramento County Jail do not belong to him, but to Sacramento County. Similarly, there is no indication the “Medical Records Director,” assuming that is an identifiable person, violated any of plaintiff’s federal rights. For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the court already gave plaintiff an opportunity to amend highlighting the same flaws identified herein, granting leave to amend a second time appears futile. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s April 2, 2024 findings and recommendations are vacated. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and 2. This case be closed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). || Dated: September 12, 2024 / a8 } i | / p , a ce CAROLYNK. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] | jame0063.fis