(PC) Reyes v. Young et al, No. 2:2014cv02711 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/23/15 ORDERING that the October 6, 2015 findings and recommendations are vacated; The First Amended Complaint is dismissed; and Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of service of this order to file a Second Amended Complaint.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID REYES, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2711 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. YOUNG, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 This prisoner civil rights action was commenced in November 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On 19 January 23, 2015, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was 20 granted multiple extensions of time, but failed to file an amended complaint. On October 6, 21 2015, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 21.) 22 On October 29, 2015, plaintiff constructively filed an amended complaint, which was 23 docketed on November 6, 2015. (ECF No. 22.) In light of plaintiff’s incarcerated and pro se 24 status, the court will vacate its earlier findings and proceed to screen the amended complaint. 25 Having reviewed the amended complaint, the undersigned concludes that it fails to cure 26 the defects of the original complaint, as set forth in January 23, 2015 screening order. Plaintiff 27 again attempts to bring numerous, unrelated claims in a single action, and his allegations are too 28 1 1 vague and conclusory to state a claim against any defendant. Plaintiff will be granted one more 2 opportunity to file an amended complaint in an attempt to state a cognizable claim. 3 I. Medical Indifference Standard 4 In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that prison officials were deliberately 5 indifferent to his medical needs after another inmate hit him in the face with a rock. Plaintiff was 6 taken to a hospital and had surgery for this injury, and he fails to allege in non-conclusory terms 7 that any defendant was medically indifferent. 8 9 Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a violation of the prisoner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 10 97, 104-05 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation only when the individual is 11 deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id.; see Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 12 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Lopez v. 13 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of two parts. Jett, 439 15 F.3d at 1096, citing McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other 16 grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). First, the 17 plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner’s 18 condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of 19 pain.’” Id., citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. “Examples of serious medical needs include ‘[t]he 20 existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of 21 comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 22 individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.’” Lopez, 203 F. 3d 23 at 1131-1132, citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60. 24 Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 25 indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. This second prong is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act 26 or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the 27 indifference. Id. Under this standard, the prison official must not only “be aware of facts from 28 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but that person 2 1 “must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This “subjective 2 approach” focuses only “on what a defendant’s mental attitude actually was.” Id. at 839. A 3 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 4 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106. 5 A difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, 6 nor does a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of 7 medical treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 8 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 9 II. Failure to Protect Standard 10 Plaintiff also claims that prison officials failed to protect him from the inmate who hit him 11 with a rock, as they failed to segregate him from this inmate and other gang members after he 12 returned from the hospital. 13 The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment imposes on prison 14 officials, among other things, a duty to “take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the 15 inmates.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. To properly allege an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to 16 protect, the inmate must assert that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a “substantial 17 risk of serious harm,” and that a prison official displayed “deliberate indifference” to that risk. Id. 18 at 834. A prison official displays deliberate indifference when he is “both 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.” Id. at 837. A showing of mere negligence is not enough to establish a 21 constitutional violation. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998). 22 III. Leave to Amend 23 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 24 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 25 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 26 each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there 27 is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 28 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 3 1 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 2 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 3 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he 4 should set forth a “short and plain statement” of his claim and any related claims against the 5 appropriate defendants. 6 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 7 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 8 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 9 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 10 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 11 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 12 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The October 6, 2015 findings and recommendations are vacated; 15 2. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed; and 16 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a Second 17 Amended Complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 18 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the 19 docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff 20 must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended 21 complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 22 dismissed. 23 Dated: November 23, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2/reye2711.fac 4
]]>
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.
