(PC) Ramsey v. Dickerson

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 30, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00666
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 DAVID BRANDON RAMSEY, 1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER

13 vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 8(a)(3), WITH 14 C/O A. DICKERSON, et al., LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1.) 15 Defendants. THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 David Brandon Ramsey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff 22 filed the Complaint commencing this action at the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court 23 for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On May 16, 2019, the case was transferred 24 to this court. (ECF No. 5.) 25 The Complaint is now before the court for screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 1.) 26 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 27 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 28 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 1 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 2 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 3 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 4 “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 5 dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim 6 upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 7 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 8 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 9 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 10 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 11 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken 12 as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 13 Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state 14 a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim 15 to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 16 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 17 conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 18 plausibility standard. Id. 19 III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT 20 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California. The 21 events at issue in the Complaint allegedly took place at North Kern State Prison in Delano, 22 California, when Plaintiff was incarcerated there in the custody of the California Department of 23 Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff names as defendants Sergeant A. Jimenez, Correctional 24 Officer (C/O) A. Dickerson, C/O S. Borlina, and C/O J. Santiago (collectively, “Defendants”). 25 A summary of Plaintiff’s allegations follows: 26 On May 21, 2017, Plaintiff experienced a seizure. During evaluation by medical staff 27 defendant Sgt. Jimenez grabbed Plaintiff’s pinkie finger, bent it back and broke it. Plaintiff 28 pulled his hand away and was forced onto his stomach. He pulled his hands up to his chest 1 protecting his hand. Defendant C/O Dickerson grabbed Plaintiff in a three-finger choke hold 2 bruising his trachea and neck as he was being taken out of the exam room in handcuffs. Plaintiff 3 was body-slammed on the floor causing him to hit the side of his face and his ear. He felt wind 4 go into his ear and heard a pop. He was then brought to his feet and as he was being placed in 5 the observation cage, defendant Jimenez grabbed him by the hair and slammed his forehead into 6 the cage. The officers left him in handcuffs that were so tight they caused swelling and required 7 special assistance to have them removed. Officers made false statements to cover up their 8 actions. The medical team requested to send Plaintiff to an outside hospital, but the request was 9 denied delaying proper medical care. Plaintiff suffered a broken finger, cuts, bruises, abrasions, 10 head trauma, ear and hearing damage, wrist damage, mental trauma, and ongoing psychological 11 harm. 12 Plaintiff has not requested any relief in the Complaint except a jury trial. 13 IV. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 14 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

15 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to 16 be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 17 secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 18

19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely provides ‘a 21 method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 22 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)); see also Chapman v. 23 Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600, 618 (1979); Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 24 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012); Crowley v. Nevada, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012); Anderson v. 25 Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006). “To the extent that the violation of a state law 26 amounts to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the 27 federal Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id. 28 /// 1 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under 2 color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him or her of rights secured by the Constitution 3 or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 4 Marsh v. Cnty. of San Diego, 680 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing “under color of 5 state law”). A person deprives another of a constitutional right, “within the meaning of § 1983, 6 ‘if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act 7 which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” 8 Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 9 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “The requisite causal connection may be 10 established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or 11 reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.” Preschooler II, 479 12 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743). This standard of causation “closely resembles 13 the standard ‘foreseeability’ formulation of proximate cause.” Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 14 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 15 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). 16 A. Rule 8(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17 Plaintiff has not included a request for relief in the Complaint. Rule 8(a)(3) requires that 18 a complaint include a request for relief: 19 A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: 20 (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the 21 court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; 22 (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 23 relief; and 24 (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or 25 different types of relief. 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be dismissed for violation of Rule 8(a)(3), with leave to file 2 an amended complaint including a request for relief. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in 3 which to file the First Amended Complaint. 4 In the paragraphs that follow the court shall set forth the legal standards for the claims it 5 appears Plaintiff wishes to bring. 6 1. Excessive Force -- Eighth Amendment Claim 7 “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and 8 responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992) 9 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause 10 harm always violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant 11 injury is evident. Id. at 9; see also Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (Eighth 12 Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis 13 injuries)). “[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in 14 violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether 15 force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and 16 sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 7. “In determining whether the use of force was wanton and 17 unnecessary, it may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship 18 between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the 19 responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Id. 20 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The absence of serious injury is . . . relevant 21 to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, but does not end it.” Id. 22 2. Retaliation 23 Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 24 petition the government may support a 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 5527, 532 (9th 25 Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 26 Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 27 Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 28 adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that 1 such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action 2 did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 3 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); 4 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). 5 3. Fourteenth Amendment Claim 6 Plaintiff indicates in the Complaint that he wishes to bring a claim under the Fourteenth 7 Amendment. However, Plaintiff has not indicated what type of Fourteenth Amendment claim 8 he wishes to bring. Without more information from Plaintiff, the court cannot offer a legal 9 standard for this claim. 10 4. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Claim 11 Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason 12 of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, 13 programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 14 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II authorizes suits by private citizens for money damages against public 15 entities, United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153 (2006), and state prisons “fall squarely 16 within the statutory definition of ‘public entity,’” Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrs. v. Yeskey, 524 17 U.S. 206, 210 (1998). 18 In order to state a claim that a public program or service violated Title II of the ADA, a 19 plaintiff must show: (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability;” (2) he was either excluded 20 from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, 21 or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial of 22 benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability. McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 23 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 691 (9th Cir. 24 2001) (“If a public entity denies an otherwise ‘qualified individual’ ‘meaningful access’ to its 25 ‘services, programs, or activities’ ‘solely by reason of’ his or her disability, that individual may 26 have an ADA claim against the public entity.”). The ADA, as amended in 2008, defines a 27 disability, with respect to an individual, as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially 28 /// 1 limits one or more major life activities of such an individual.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2 12102(1)(A)). 3 5. Eighth Amendment Medical Claim 4 “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate 5 must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 6 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two-part test for 7 deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by 8 demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury 9 or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need 10 was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 11 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 12 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown 13 by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm 14 caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Deliberate indifference 15 may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical 16 treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. 17 Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to 18 further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical 19 needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 20 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 21 “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 22 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the 23 facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but 24 that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 25 825, 837 (1994)). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the 26 official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting 27 Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). “A showing of 28 medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under 1 the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 1060. “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 2 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)). 3 “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities 4 regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 5 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, a plaintiff “must show that the course 6 of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . 7 that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” 8 Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). 9 V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 10 The court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint violates Rule 8(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of 11 Civil Procedure for failing to include a request for relief in the Complaint. Plaintiff shall be 12 granted leave to amend the Complaint to cure this deficiency found by the court. Plaintiff is 13 granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 14 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 15 The First Amended Complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 16 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 17 rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff 18 must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 19 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each 20 defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must 21 demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 22 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the 23 opportunity to amend, it is not for the purpose of adding new defendants for unrelated issues. 24 Plaintiff should also note that he has not been granted leave to add allegations of events occurring 25 after the initiation of this suit on May 10, 2019. 26 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey 27 v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012), and it must be complete in itself 28 without reference to the prior or superceded pleading. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 1 complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, 2 in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 3 defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 4 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 5 under penalty of perjury. 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for violation of Rule 8(a)(3), with leave to 8 amend; 9 2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 10 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which 11 to file a First Amended Complaint; 12 4. The First Amended Complaint shall be titled “First Amended Complaint” and 13 refer to the case number 1:19-cv-00666-DAD-GSA-PC; and 14 5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 15 this case be dismissed. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 Dated: July 30, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28