(PC) Stringfellow v. Forester, et al., No. 2:2015cv01659 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 03/30/16 ordering the 9/13/15 findings and recommendations 6 are vacated and plaintiff's request for an extension of time 9 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's request to proceed in form a pauperis 8 is granted. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collected in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel 3 is denied. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Stringfellow v. Forester, et al. Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT STRINGFELLOW, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1659-JAM-EFB P v. B. FORESTER, et al., 15 ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 17 18 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915,1 a request for appointment of counsel, and a request for an extension of time. 20 I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 21 22 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 23 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 25 ///// 26 27 28 1 In light of this filing the September 14, 2015 recommendation that this action be dismissed following plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or submit a proper application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is vacated. Additionally, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file “appealants opening brief” (ECF No. 9) is denied as moot. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 II. Screening Requirement and Standards 2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 8 9 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 10 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 11 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 13 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 14 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 15 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 16 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 17 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 18 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 19 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 20 678. 21 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 22 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 24 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 25 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 26 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 27 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 28 ///// 2 1 2 III. Screening Order The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915A and finds that the 3 allegations are too vague and conclusory to state a cognizable claim for relief. The complaint 4 names defendants Forester, Burnett, Linggi, Johns, and Broddricke and the allegations consist of 5 the following: 6 7 1) Denial Re[a]sonable Accommodation, 4-15-15 to 7-31-15 2) Denial of proper medication 4-15-15 to 7-31-15 3) Denial of Health and Welness 8 9 ECF No. 1, § IV. Plaintiff’s intention appears to be to assert an Eighth Amendment claim of 10 deliberate indifference to medical needs against. However, he has not pleaded sufficient facts to 11 state a claim for relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint 12 must give fair notice and state facts satisfying the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 13 Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with 14 at least some degree of particularity acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s 15 claim. Id. Because plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief, the complaint must be dismissed. 16 Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he can allege a cognizable 17 legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal 18 theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must 19 afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). 20 Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set 21 forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. Any amended complaint must cure the 22 deficiencies identified above and also adhere to the following requirements: 23 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 24 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 25 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 26 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 27 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 28 It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 3 1 2 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 3 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 4 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 5 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 6 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 7 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 8 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 9 1967)). 10 The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 11 Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 12 See Local Rule 110. 13 14 In addition, the court notes that the following legal standards may apply to plaintiff’s intended claim for relief. 15 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 16 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 17 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 18 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 19 An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the 20 defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between 21 the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. 22 Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 23 Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional 24 conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Plaintiff must 25 identify the particular person or persons who violated his rights. He must also plead facts 26 showing how that particular person was involved in the alleged violation. 27 ///// 28 ///// 4 1 Claims for damages against the state, its agencies or its officers for actions performed in 2 their official capacities are barred under the Eleventh Amendment, unless the state waives its 3 immunity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); see also Will v. Michigan Dep’t of 4 State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (neither a state nor its officials acting in their official 5 capacities are persons under § 1983). Section 1983 does not abrogate the states’ Eleventh 6 Amendment immunity from suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45 (1979). See also 7 Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991) (clarifying that Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits 8 against state officials sued in their individual capacities, nor does it bar suits for prospective 9 injunctive relief against state officials sued in their official capacities). 10 To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on the denial of medical care, a 11 plaintiff must establish that he had a serious medical need and that the defendant’s response to 12 that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see 13 also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the failure to 14 treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 15 infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may be shown by the denial, 16 delay or intentional interference with medical treatment or by the way in which medical care is 17 provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988). 18 To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from 19 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also 20 draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Thus, a defendant is liable if 21 he knows that plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing 22 to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. A physician need not fail to treat an inmate 23 altogether in order to violate that inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 24 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). A failure to competently treat a serious medical condition, 25 even if some treatment is prescribed, may constitute deliberate indifference in a particular case. 26 Id. 27 It is important to differentiate common law negligence claims of malpractice from claims 28 predicated on violations of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. 5 1 In asserting the latter, “[m]ere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not 2 support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 3 1980) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-106 (1976); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 4 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)). 5 IV. 6 Request for Appointment of Counsel Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require 7 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 8 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 9 to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 10 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 11 When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the 12 likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 13 se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 14 (9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 15 circumstances in this case. 16 17 V. Summary of Order Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The September 13, 2015 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 6) are vacated 19 and plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 9) is denied as moot. 20 2. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 8) is granted. 21 3. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 22 in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 23 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 24 4. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied. 25 5. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The complaint 26 must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended 27 Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this 28 action for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a 6 1 cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United 2 States Marshal. 3 Dated: March 30, 2016. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
