(PC) Navarro v. StClair ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERT NAVARRO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00524-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED 13 v. COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS DESIRE TO PROCEED ONLY ON 14 J. STCLAIR, et al., CLAIMS FOUND COGNIZABLE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 8) 16 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Gilbert Navarro alleges the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious 19 medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 8.) The Court finds that Plaintiff 20 states cognizable deliberate indifference claims against the defendants in their individual 21 capacities, but his official-capacity claims are not cognizable. Therefore, the Court directs 22 Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this order or, in 23 the alternative, notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only on his individual-capacity claims. 24 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 25 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 27 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 1 who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court should dismiss a complaint if 2 it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal 3 theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 4 II. INDIVIDUAL- VERSUS OFFICIAL-CAPACITY SUITS 5 Plaintiffs can sue a governmental actor in his individual or official capacity. See Kentucky 6 v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-67 (1985). When a plaintiff sues a state actor in his individual 7 capacity, the suit “seek[s] to impose personal liability upon … [the] official for actions he takes 8 under color of state law.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985). To establish personal 9 liability in a section 1983 case, the plaintiff must “show that the official, acting under color of 10 state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.” Id. at 166 (citation omitted). 11 On the other hand, when a plaintiff sues a state actor in her official capacity, the suit 12 “represent[s] … another way of pleading an action against an entity of which [the] officer is an 13 agent.” Id. at 165 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Suits against state officials in 14 their official capacity therefore should be treated as suits against the State.” Hafer v. Melo, 502 15 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). “A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief against the State is not required to allege 16 a named official’s personal involvement in … the alleged constitutional violation…. Rather, a 17 plaintiff need only identify the law or policy challenged as a constitutional violation and name the 18 official within the entity who can appropriately respond to injunctive relief.” Hartmann v. 19 California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Hernandez and Drs. StClair, McKay, and Day were 22 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in May and June of 2018. (Doc. 8.) The Court 23 finds that Plaintiff states cognizable claims of deliberate indifference against the defendants. His 24 allegations sufficiently show that (1) he suffered from a medical condition that, if not treated, 25 “could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” (2) 26 the defendants were deliberately indifferent to that condition, and (3) he was harmed by the 27 alleged indifference. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation 1 Plaintiff, however, improperly sues the defendants in both their individual and official 2 capacities. (Doc. 8 at 9-10.) Plaintiff only states cognizable individual-capacity claims; as noted 3 above, he sufficiently alleges that the defendants personally violated his Eighth Amendment 4 rights. See Kentucky, 473 U.S. at 166. Plaintiff does not, however, state cognizable official- 5 capacity claims, because he does not identify a law or policy as the moving force behind the 6 alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1127. 7 Additionally, Plaintiff seeks only damages in this action. (Doc. 8 at 6.) As explained in the 8 previous section, suits against state officials in their official capacity are treated as suits against 9 the state itself. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25. Plaintiff may not seek damages against the state without 10 violating the Eleventh Amendment, which “erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought 11 against a state.” Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Although 12 the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), provides an exception to this general bar, 13 the exception only applies to “suits against an official for prospective relief,” not to “claims for 14 retrospective relief (such as damages).” Porter, 319 F.3d at 491 (citations omitted). 15 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims are 17 not cognizable. Within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a second 18 amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified herein or, in the alternative, file a notice that 19 that he wishes to proceed only on his individual-capacity claims and to dismiss his official- 20 capacity claims. If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may file a notice of 21 voluntary dismissal. If he needs an extension of time to comply with this order, he shall file a 22 motion seeking an extension no later than 21 days from the date of service of this order. 23 Plaintiff is informed that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and 24 prior amendments. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, the amended 25 complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 26 Local Rule 220. The Court provides Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure 27 the deficiencies identified in this order. However, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit 1 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint; 3 2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; and, 4 3. Within 21 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file one of the 5 following three items: 6 a. a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in this order, or 7 b. a notice that he does not wish to file a second amended complaint and instead 8 wishes to (1) proceed only on his deliberate indifference claims against the 9 defendants in their individual capacities, and (2) dismiss his claims against the 10 defendants in their official capacities, or 11 c. a notice of voluntary dismissal of this entire case. 12 If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend that this action 13 proceed only on the claims found cognizable herein and that all other claims be dismissed 14 with prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Sheila K. Oberto 17 Dated: August 14, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27