Young v. Garay et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03267

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/1/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 GALE JOSEPH YOUNG, 8 Case No. 15-cv-03267-KAW (PR) Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 10 TO AMEND SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S 11 DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 Defendants. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 Plaintiff Gale Joseph Young, a state prisoner incarcerated at the San Francisco County Jail, 15 has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of his 16 constitutional rights by the San Francisco Sheriff's Department and San Francisco Sheriff's 17 Deputies Garay #2101, Honda #1855, Soville #1997, Fields #1300, Frietzche #1943, H. Wong 18 #1959 and A. Wong #1830. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned United 19 States Magistrate Judge over this action. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 20 pauperis ("IFP"), which is granted in a separate order. The Court now addresses the claims 21 asserted in Plaintiff's complaint. 22 DISCUSSION 23 I. Standard of Review 24 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 25 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 27 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 1 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 2 Cir. 1988). 3 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 4 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 5 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 6 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 7 Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 8 plaintiff can show that the defendant's actions both actually and proximately caused the 9 deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Caifornia Dep't of Corrections & 10 Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 11 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives 12 another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does an affirmative act, Northern District of California United States District Court 13 participates in another's affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to 14 do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 15 Under no circumstances is there respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Lemire, 756 16 F.3d at 1074. Or, in layman's terms, under no circumstances is there liability under section 1983 17 solely because one is responsible for the actions or omissions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 18 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 19 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal 20 involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the 21 supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 22 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)). It is 23 insufficient for a plaintiff only to allege that supervisors knew about the constitutional violation 24 and that they generally created policies and procedures that led to the violation, without alleging 25 "a specific policy" or "a specific event" instigated by them that led to the constitutional violations. 26 Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012). 27 II. Plaintiff's Claims 28 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on July 26, 2014, while he was in custody in the San 2 1 Francisco County Jail, the named Sheriff's deputies beat him to the point that he had kidney 2 swelling, facial swelling, blinding in his left eye and severe pain that has yet to fade. These 3 injuries were so severe that he was taken to the San Francisco General Hospital for treatment. He 4 also alleges that "San Francisco Sheriff intentionally put me with inmates that were prone to attack 5 me." 6 Liberally construed, the allegations that Plaintiff was beaten state an Eighth Amendment 7 claim for excessive force against the named deputies. However, the allegation that the Sheriff put 8 Plaintiff with inmates that were prone to attack him does not state a cognizable claim because he 9 does not allege the individuals who put him with the inmates and the allegations are insufficient to 10 show that the Sheriff is liable in his supervisory capacity. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to 11 correct this deficiency, if he truthfully can do so. 12 CONCLUSION Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows: 14 1. The claim that the Sheriff placed Plaintiff with inmates who were prone to attack him is 15 DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards set forth above. The amended 16 complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this Order is filed and must 17 include the caption and civil case number used in this Order and the words AMENDED 18 COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original 19 complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 20 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original 21 complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the specified time period will result in this claim 22 being dismissed with prejudice. 23 2. The cognizable excessive force claim will be served after Plaintiff files and the Court 24 reviews his amended complaint. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within twenty- 25 eight days, the excessive force claim will then be served on Defendants. 26 3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 27 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed "Notice of 28 Change of Address," and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 3 1 may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 41(b). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 1, 2015 6 ______________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4