1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAYLA SUGGETT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00907-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. FINDING THAT THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES 14 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE VIABLE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CENTER, et al., CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 15 WONG, SOLANO COUNTY, AND Defendants. WELLPATH MEDICAL 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 18 DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 19 ECF No. 10 20 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, brings this § 1983 case against several defendants at the 23 Solano County Justice Center, alleging that they violated her constitutional rights by failing to 24 provide adequate medical care, retaliating against her for filing grievances, and rejecting her 25 grievances. After review of the complaint, I find that she has stated viable Fourteenth 26 Amendment claims for inadequate medical care against defendants Wong, Solano County,1 and 27
28 1 Although plaintiff has named the jail itself as a defendant, the appropriate defendant is 1 Wellpath Medical. Those claims should proceed; all other claims and defendants should be 2 dismissed. 3 Screening Order 4 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 5 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 6 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 7 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 8 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 9 relief. Id. 10 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 12 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 13 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 15 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 16 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 17 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 18 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 19 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 20 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 21 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 22 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 23 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 24 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 25 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 26 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27
28 the county itself. See Vance v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 928 F. Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996). 1 2 II. Analysis 3 Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) 4 and that she requires medication for this condition. ECF No. 10 at 4. She arrived at the Solano 5 County Justice Center on February 17, 2023, and was told by medical staff that there was a policy 6 of not providing medication for ADHD, because such medications were considered stimulants. 7 Id. She claims that she was denied the necessary medication both by a Wellpath employee and by 8 a physician named Wong. Id. The lack of medication led her to experience behavioral symptoms 9 and brought about multiple punishments for disorderly conduct. Id. at 5-6. These allegations are 10 sufficient to proceed against Wong, Wellpath, and Solano County. With respect to the county, 11 plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, at this point, that an official policy of the county against 12 prescribing ADHD medication is partially responsible for her inadequate care. See Thomas v. 13 Cnty. of Riverside, 763 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The district court recited the correct 14 standard for determining Monell liability, which is that it may attach when an employee is acting 15 pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy, longstanding practice or custom, or as a final 16 policymaker.”). 17 Plaintiff’s other allegations fare less well. She claims that defendants Bettencourt and 18 Hagen, both correctional officers at the jail, have denied her grievances concerning her need for 19 medication and are aware that her erratic behavior should be attributed to the lack thereof. ECF 20 No. 10 at 5-6. These allegations are insufficient to give rise to a constitutional violation. There is 21 no right to any particular grievance procedure, and denying a grievance does not give rise to a 22 federal claim. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (“There is no legitimate 23 claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure.”). And plaintiff has not alleged that either of these 24 defendants, neither of whom is part of the medical staff or is alleged to have any medical training, 25 is responsible for her psychiatric treatment or the prescription of medications. Plaintiff does 26 allege that she was “written up” by Bettencourt for behavior that was caused by her lack of 27 medication, ECF No. 10 at 6, but this alone fails to state a claim. Neither Bettencourt nor Hagen 28 were allegedly responsible for her psychiatric care. Instead, as correctional officers, they were 1 presumably charged with maintaining order in the jail. Pretrial detainees may be punished for a 2 violation of jail rules, so long as they receive adequate process. See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 3 517, 524-525 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff does not allege that she did not receive the process she 4 was due after being written up. Lastly, plaintiff alleges that she has experienced retaliation for 5 filing her grievances, but she has not identified any specific acts of retaliation, or explicitly 6 attributed them to Hagen or Bettencourt. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 8 1. This action shall proceed based on the Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care 9 claims against defendants Wong, Solano County, and Wellpath Medical. 10 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, a summons, a Notice of 11 Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed November 12 29, 2023, ECF No. 10. 13 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 14 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 15 following documents: 16 a.
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 LAYLA SUGGETT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00907-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. FINDING THAT THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES 14 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE VIABLE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CENTER, et al., CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 15 WONG, SOLANO COUNTY, AND Defendants. WELLPATH MEDICAL 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 18 DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED 19 ECF No. 10 20 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 21 22 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, brings this § 1983 case against several defendants at the 23 Solano County Justice Center, alleging that they violated her constitutional rights by failing to 24 provide adequate medical care, retaliating against her for filing grievances, and rejecting her 25 grievances. After review of the complaint, I find that she has stated viable Fourteenth 26 Amendment claims for inadequate medical care against defendants Wong, Solano County,1 and 27
28 1 Although plaintiff has named the jail itself as a defendant, the appropriate defendant is 1 Wellpath Medical. Those claims should proceed; all other claims and defendants should be 2 dismissed. 3 Screening Order 4 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 5 A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 6 in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 7 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 8 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 9 relief. Id. 10 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 12 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 13 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 14 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 15 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 16 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 17 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 18 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 19 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 20 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 21 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 22 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 23 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 24 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 25 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 26 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 27
28 the county itself. See Vance v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 928 F. Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996). 1 2 II. Analysis 3 Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) 4 and that she requires medication for this condition. ECF No. 10 at 4. She arrived at the Solano 5 County Justice Center on February 17, 2023, and was told by medical staff that there was a policy 6 of not providing medication for ADHD, because such medications were considered stimulants. 7 Id. She claims that she was denied the necessary medication both by a Wellpath employee and by 8 a physician named Wong. Id. The lack of medication led her to experience behavioral symptoms 9 and brought about multiple punishments for disorderly conduct. Id. at 5-6. These allegations are 10 sufficient to proceed against Wong, Wellpath, and Solano County. With respect to the county, 11 plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, at this point, that an official policy of the county against 12 prescribing ADHD medication is partially responsible for her inadequate care. See Thomas v. 13 Cnty. of Riverside, 763 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The district court recited the correct 14 standard for determining Monell liability, which is that it may attach when an employee is acting 15 pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy, longstanding practice or custom, or as a final 16 policymaker.”). 17 Plaintiff’s other allegations fare less well. She claims that defendants Bettencourt and 18 Hagen, both correctional officers at the jail, have denied her grievances concerning her need for 19 medication and are aware that her erratic behavior should be attributed to the lack thereof. ECF 20 No. 10 at 5-6. These allegations are insufficient to give rise to a constitutional violation. There is 21 no right to any particular grievance procedure, and denying a grievance does not give rise to a 22 federal claim. See Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (“There is no legitimate 23 claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure.”). And plaintiff has not alleged that either of these 24 defendants, neither of whom is part of the medical staff or is alleged to have any medical training, 25 is responsible for her psychiatric treatment or the prescription of medications. Plaintiff does 26 allege that she was “written up” by Bettencourt for behavior that was caused by her lack of 27 medication, ECF No. 10 at 6, but this alone fails to state a claim. Neither Bettencourt nor Hagen 28 were allegedly responsible for her psychiatric care. Instead, as correctional officers, they were 1 presumably charged with maintaining order in the jail. Pretrial detainees may be punished for a 2 violation of jail rules, so long as they receive adequate process. See Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 3 517, 524-525 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff does not allege that she did not receive the process she 4 was due after being written up. Lastly, plaintiff alleges that she has experienced retaliation for 5 filing her grievances, but she has not identified any specific acts of retaliation, or explicitly 6 attributed them to Hagen or Bettencourt. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 8 1. This action shall proceed based on the Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care 9 claims against defendants Wong, Solano County, and Wellpath Medical. 10 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, a summons, a Notice of 11 Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed November 12 29, 2023, ECF No. 10. 13 3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 14 Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 15 following documents: 16 a. one completed summons for the defendants; 17 b. three completed USM-285 forms; and 18 c. four copies of the signed November 29, 2023 complaint. 19 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 20 Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals Service to 21 serve the above defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without payment of 22 costs by plaintiff. 23 5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in recommendation that this 24 action be dismissed. 25 6. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this action. 26 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that all claims other than the ones identified as viable 27 above be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 28 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 6 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 9 | v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ January 16, 2024 Q_—— 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 16 17 18 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 LAYLA SUGGETT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00907-JDP (PC) 6 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 7 v. 8 SOLANO COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, 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 29, 2023 complaint 19
21 _________________________________ 22 Plaintiff 23 Dated: 24
26 27 28