Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JODY MOREHOUSE, CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00986-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND v. (ECF NO. 1) KERN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE , et. al., THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO AMEND
Defendants.
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His July 11, 2016 complaint is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.) No other parties have appeared in the action. I. Screening Requirement
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners and pretrial detainees seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisone r has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). *2 “Notwithstanding any f iling fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). II. Pleading Standard
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of act ion, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. III. Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff ’s claims stem from his in carceration in the Lerdo Pretrial Facility of the Kern County Jail in Bakersfield, California. He brings this action against the Kern County Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”) and “Kern County Mental Health.”
His allegations may be summarized essentially as follows: Plaintiff is diagnosed with bipolar disorder and an anxiety disorder. He has not
received his medications, namely klonopin and remeron, since he was incarcerated, and *3 as such has suffered anxiety and depression.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. IV. Analysis A. Municipal Entity Liability Plaintiff sues only the KCSO and Kern County Mental Health; he names no
individual defendants. He thus appears to make a Monell claim. “[S]ection 1983 imposes liability only on ‘persons’ who, under color of law, deprive others of their constitutional rights, [and] the Supreme Court has construed the term ‘persons’ to include municipalities such as the County.” Castro v. Cty . of Los Angeles, 797 F.3d 654, 670 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)). Counties may not be held liable for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior , but they may be held liable for a constitutional violation if an action taken pursuant to a policy, be it a formal or informal policy, caused the underlying violation. Castro, 797 F.3d at 670 (citing City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 131 (1989) and Monell, 436 U.S. at 691) (quotation marks omitted); see also Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (municipal liability claim cannot be maintained unless there is an underlying constitutional violation).
Municipal liability may also be imposed where the local government unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson v. Cty. Of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1186 (9th Cir. 2002). Under this route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s deliberate indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit the constitutional violation.” Id. This kind of deliberate indifference is found when the need to remedy the omission is so obvious, and the failure to act so likely to result in the violation of rights, that the municipality reasonably can be said to have been deliberately indifferent when it failed to act. Id. at 1195.
In this case, Plaintiff has not linked the underlying violation of his rights by Defendants to a policy or practice attributable to the county, nor has he provided any *4 facts showing that the county knew of, and blatantly ignored, constitutional violations committed by its employees. Therefore, all claims against the KCSO and Kern County Mental Health will be dismissed with leave to amend.
B. Linkage In the event Plaintiff intends to make a claim against individual defendants for the
violation of his rights, he must adhere to the requirements set forth below. Under § 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 676-7; Simmons, 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff may not attribute liability to a group of defendants, but must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat superior , as each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235. Supervisors may only be held liable if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013).
C. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment when Plaintiff did not receive his medications. As Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, however, his claims are properly evaluated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The standard applicable to a pretrial detainee’s claim for inadequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment is presently not clear. In the past, such claims were subject to the same state of mind requirement as an Eighth Amendment violation, i.e., subjective and deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. See Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2010). However, that holding was *5 called into question by the United States Supreme Court in a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force case, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). Most recently, the Ninth Circuit extended the Kingsley rationale to a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. 12-56829, 2016 WL 4268955, at *7 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016) (en banc) (slip op). Although Castro did not expressly extend its holding to other Fourteenth Amendment violations, the Court sees no reason why the same rationale should not apply to other Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claims.
Accordingly, in order to proceed on such a claim, Plaintiff must allege “ (1) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (2) those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (3) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved — making the consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious; and (4) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries.” Id. With respect to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be “objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citing Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. at 2473).
Plaintiff has provided no more than nonspecific and conclusory allegations to support his medical care claim. He has not explained whether he requested his medications, whether any personnel was aware of his medical needs, whether or how the denial of his medications puts him at substantial risk of suffering serious harm, or any reasons given for denying his treatment. There are no facts upon which the Court could conclude that any individuals responded to Plaintiff’s needs in an objectively unreasonable manner. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. V. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. The Court will provide Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes, in good faith, he can cure the identified deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. *6 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff amends, he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
The Court advises Plaintiff an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or supers eded pleading,” Local Rule 220.
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend; 2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form and
a copy of his complaint filed July 11, 2016; 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or a notice of voluntary dismissal;
4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, the undersigned this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure to obey a court order, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael J. Seng Dated: September 21, 2016