(PC) Luna v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Dept.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 16, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01807
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DAVID LUNA, Case No. 2:23-cv-01807-JDP (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. FINDINGS THAT THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES COGNIZABLE 12 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS DEPARTMENT, et al., AGAINST DEFENDANTS ROMIG, 13 GARCIA, AND LO Defendants. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

15 THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS BE DISMISSED AS NON-COGNIZABLE 16 ECF No. 10 17 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 18 DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff, an inmate in the Sacramento County Jail, alleges that defendants Romig, Lo, and 21 Garcia, all of whom are sheriff’s deputies, ignored his pleas for medical help. ECF No. 10 at 3. 22 After reviewing the complaint, I find that it states viable Fourteenth Amendment claims against 23 these defendants.1 All other claims and defendants should be dismissed, however. 24 25 26

27 1 As a pretrial detainee, plaintiff’s inadequate medical care arises under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth. See Sandoval v. Cty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 667 (9th 28 Cir. 2021). 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 4 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 5 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 6 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief. Id. 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 II. Analysis 26 Plaintiff alleges that, on April 12, 2023, he pressed the emergency button in his cell and 27 complained to defendants Romig, Garcia, and Lo of a painful abscess that was oozing pus. ECF 28 No. 10 at 3. These defendants allegedly told plaintiff that his issue was not an emergency and 1 declined to either summon medical staff or transport plaintiff to the infirmary. Id. At some 2 unspecified later time, plaintiff was seen by medical personnel, who allegedly stated that he 3 should have been seen sooner. Id. at 3-4. These allegations are sufficient to state Fourteenth 4 Amendment claims against these three defendants for inadequate medical care. 5 The only other claim at issue is plaintiff’s allegation that defendant Jimenez, a sergeant 6 supervisor at the jail, should be held liable for condoning the “shoddy” medical care at the 7 facility. Id. at 5. He does not, however, make any allegation that Jimenez was involved in or 8 aware of the denial of medical care at issue in his other claims. Nor does he offer any specifics as 9 to how Jimenez is responsible for the medical care at the jail. Accordingly, I find that his claims 10 against this defendant should be dismissed. 11 Given that plaintiff has already been afforded an opportunity to amend, I will direct 12 service for his cognizable claims and recommend that his non-viable ones be dismissed. 13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 14 1. This action shall proceed based on the Fourth Amendment inadequate medical care 15 claims against defendants Romig, Garcia, and Lo. 16 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, a summons, a Notice of 17 Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed November 18 20, 2023, ECF No. 10. 19 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 20 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 21 following documents: 22 a. one completed summons for the defendants; 23 b. three completed USM-285 forms; and 24 c. four copies of the signed November 20, 2023 complaint. 25 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 26 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals Service to 27 serve the above defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without payment of 28 costs by plaintiff. 1 5. The failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 2 6. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this action. 3 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that all claims other than the ones identified as viable 4 | above be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 7 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 10 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 11 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 12 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 13 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | q Sty — Dated: _ January 16, 2024 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 DAVID LUNA, Case No. 2:23-cv-01807-JDP (PC) 6 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 7 v. 8 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 13 14

15 In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff must submit: 16 1 completed summons form 17 3 completed forms USM-285 18 4 copies of the November 20, 2023 complaint 19

21 _________________________________ 22 Plaintiff 23 Dated: 24

27 28