Manse Sullivan v. Norm Kramer , 609 F. App'x 435 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANSE SULLIVAN, No. 14-15872
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00275-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NORM KRAMER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 22, 2015***
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California civil detainee Manse Sullivan appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law
claims arising out of his placement in a state mental hospital where he is allegedly
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Sullivan consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
at risk of contracting valley fever. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Sullivan’s claims against defendants
Kramer, Ahlin, Mayberg, Schwarzenegger, and the Fresno County Board of
Supervisors because Sullivan failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief under any viable legal theory against these defendants. See Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining supervisory liability
under § 1983); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro
se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff still must present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
However, dismissal at this early stage of the proceedings of Sullivan’s safe
conditions claim against defendant Allenby was premature. Sullivan alleged that
Allenby knew of the life-threatening dangers of valley fever at the state hospital
but failed to take any preventative measures to protect Sullivan, and that the risk
prevention techniques substantially departed from generally accepted standards.
These allegations, liberally construed, were “sufficient to warrant ordering
2 14-15872
[Allenby] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir.
2012); see also Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982) (a civil detainee’s
right to safe conditions is protected by the Due Process Clause); Ammons v. Wash.
Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth objective Youngberg standard and explaining that “in the face of known
threats to patient safety, state officials may not act (or fail to act) with conscious
indifference, but must take adequate steps in accordance with professional
standards to prevent harm from occurring” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment as to Sullivan’s safe
conditions claim against defendant Allenby, and remand for Allenby to answer or
to move to dismiss.
Sullivan shall bear his own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
3 14-15872