Silverman v. Napa State Hospital

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2019
• Docket: 5:18-cv-07620
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JACOB S. SILVERMAN, 11 Case No. 18-07620 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO FILE SECOND v. 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Napa State Hospital (“NHS”). The Court dismissed the 20 complaint with leave to amend for Plaintiff to name a proper defendant for this action to 21 proceed. (Docket No. 7.) Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 8.) 22 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 4 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 10 In the original complaint, Plaintiff claimed that while he was at NHS from August 11 7, 2018 to August 28, 2018, he experienced unsanitary conditions in the bathrooms and 12 showers which were not adequately and regularly cleaned. (Docket No. 1 at 3.) The only 13 named defendant was NHS. (Id. at 2.) In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges the 14 same unsanitary conditions during the same period of time, but this time names the 15 following as Defendants: “Napa State Hospital (NSH), Napa County Board of 16 Supervisor(s) Doe(s), Chairmen(s) Doe(s) of Operations for bathroom/shower sanitations, 17 Supervisor(s) Doe(s) of Unit Q-9 bathroom/shower sanitations, at NSH.” (Docket No. 8 at 18 1, caption.) 19 The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit 20 inhumane ones. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The treatment a 21 prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to 22 scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). 23 The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide all prisoners 24 with the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care 25 and personal safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832; DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't 26 of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th 1 met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer, 511 2 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison official 3 possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). 4 As the Court already found, (Docket No. 7 at 2-3), Plaintiff’s claim that he suffered 5 unsanitary conditions for the three weeks he was at NHS is sufficient to satisfy the 6 objective component of the Eighth Amendment claim. See Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 7 726, 732-733 (9th Cir. 2000) (substantial deprivations of shelter, food, drinking water or 8 sanitation for four days are sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component of an 9 Eighth Amendment claim). However, Plaintiff has again failed to satisfy the second 10 element to state a § 1983 claim, i.e., that a person acting under the color of state law 11 committed the Eighth Amendment violation. Plaintiff again names NHS as the defendant, 12 but NHS is not an individual nor a “person” to satisfy the second element. Plaintiff also 13 attempts to name several “Doe” Defendants, such as the Napa County Board of 14 Supervisors, but makes no causal link between them and the deprivation alleged. The only 15 potential defendant is the “Supervisor” of “Unit Q-9,” if such a person exists, because 16 presumably that person would have been responsible for the maintaining the bathrooms 17 and showers in Unit Q-9, where the allegedly unsanitary conditions existed. Plaintiff shall 18 be granted one final opportunity to file another amended complaint to identify at least one 19 proper defendant by name such that this matter can be served on that defendant. Plaintiff 20 must also plead sufficient facts to establish liability against the named defendant in 21 accordance with the following legal principles. 22 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 only if Plaintiff 23 can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected 24 right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 25 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a constitutional right 26 within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s 1 deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 2 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 5 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight 6 (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a SECOND amended complaint 7 to attempt to correct the deficiencies discussed above. The second amended complaint 8 must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 18-07620 9 BLF (PR), and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If 10 using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order 11 for the action to proceed. 12 The second amended complaint supersedes the original and amended complaints, 13 which are treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. Of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 14 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in the second amended 15 complaint are no longer claims and defendants not named therein are no longer defendants. 16 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 17 Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time provided will 18 result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to 19 Plaintiff. 20 The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this 21 order to Plaintiff. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED 23 Dated: _September 23, 2019_ ________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 Order of Dismissal with Leave to File Second Am. Compl. 26 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.18\07620Silverman_dwlta2