(TEMP)(PC) Grimes v. Mule Creek State Prison Health Care
2:12-cv-00937
E.D. Cal.Sep 18, 2013Background
- Grimes, a state prisoner, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against wardens Martel and Cash and prison health care entities at Mule Creek and CAL/IM Prison Health Care.
- Amended complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis.
- Court warns that complaints must be non-frivolous and state a plausible claim under Rule 8(a)(2).
- Court finds amended complaint vague and conclusory, failing to plead facts showing deliberate indifference or a causal link to constitutional violations.
- Plaintiff has filed 394 pages of health-care exhibits; court declines to sift through them to identify claims in a second amended complaint.
- Court grants leave to file a second amended complaint on the form provided, with specific instructions and deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended complaint states a claim under §1983. | Grimes contends inadequate medical care violated Eighth Amendment rights. | Defendants contend pleadings are vague and fail to show deliberate indifference. | Amended complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim; leave to amend granted. |
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleads deliberate indifference. | Plaintiff alleges medical neglect and improper care. | Allegations insufficient to show defendant awareness and intent to ignore serious medical needs. | Need specific facts showing how each defendant's actions rose to deliberate indifference. |
| Whether supervisory defendants can be liable under §1983. | Wardens liable for conditions and care at their prisons. | Supervisors not liable under respondeat superior without personal involvement or causal link. | Liability requires personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection; conclusory claims insufficient. |
| Whether the complaint complies with Rule 8(a)(2) and local rules. | Amended complaint should inform detailed claims. | Complaint is not a short, plain statement; reference to prior pleadings not allowed in second amendment. | Second amended complaint must be complete in itself and provide specific allegations. |
| Whether appointment of counsel is warranted. | Request for counsel due to complexity and lack of resources. | Exceptional circumstances not shown; clerical refusal of appointment not appropriate. | Motion denied; district court not required to appoint counsel in §1983 actions absent exceptional circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference required for Eighth Amendment medical claims)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard explained)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must go beyond mere formulaic recitation of the elements)
- Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (need for link between actions and deprivation under §1983)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (U.S. 1976) (causal link required for supervisory liability)
- Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1978) (personal involvement and causation required for liability)
- Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (vague allegations insufficient for §1983 claims)
- Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1967) (amended complaint supersedes prior pleading; must be complete in itself)
- Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (mere disagreement with care not a cognizable §1983 claim)