(PC) Poynter v. Peterson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARKICE POYNTER, No. 2:21-cv-0012-EFB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 B. PETERSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. As discussed 18 below, his application is granted and the court will screen the complaint. 19 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 20 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s application and finds that it makes the showing required 21 by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency 22 having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing 23 fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2). 24 Screening Standards 25 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 26 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 28 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 2 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 3 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 5 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 6 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 7 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 8 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 9 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 10 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 11 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 12 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 13 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 14 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 15 678. 16 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 17 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 18 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 19 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 20 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 21 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 22 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 23 Screening Order 24 Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 6) alleges the following: Plaintiff experiences extreme 25 pain and discomfort in the heat. Id. at 7. He takes “heat medication” for this condition (which 26 plaintiff does not identify). Id. at 5. In 2019, a doctor at Calipatria State Prison determined that 27 housing plaintiff in a desert institution posed a danger to plaintiff’s health (again, unspecified). 28 Id. Accordingly, the Calipatria Classification Committee determined that plaintiff needed to be 1 transferred to a non-desert institution. Id. Plaintiff was transferred to High Desert State Prison 2 (“HDSP”). Id. Not long after, plaintiff was told he would be transferred to Ironwood State 3 Prison (“ISP”), which is in the desert. Id. Plaintiff told HDSP officials that he could not be sent 4 to ISP because of his heat medications. Id. On March 5, 2020, however, plaintiff was transferred 5 from HDSP to ISP. Id. Plaintiff does not allege whose decision it was to transfer him or whether 6 that person knew that being housed in a desert institution posed a serious risk of harm to 7 plaintiff’s health. 8 At ISP, plaintiff made defendants W. Payne and W. Muezo aware that he was on heat 9 medication, but they put him in a cell with no air flow or running water. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff does 10 not allege whether these defendants knew what “heat medication” meant of if they were aware 11 that their actions exposed plaintiff to a serious risk of substantial harm. After being placed in the 12 cell, plaintiff became dizzy and could not breathe. Id. at 6. On March 6, 2020, plaintiff passed 13 out because his cell was too hot. Id. He hit his head on a stool as he fell. Id. His blood pressure 14 was out of control, his heart rate was shaky, and he was diagnosed with syncope and a head 15 trauma. Id. 16 On March 9, 2020 plaintiff informed defendant Hull that he should not be housed at ISP. 17 Id. Hull responded that “No case factors warranting transfer exist at this time.” Id. On March 18 11, 2020, plaintiff asked defendant Dr. Douglas Eaton why he was being housed at ISP when his 19 prior doctor said he could not be housed in a desert prison. Id. Plaintiff showed Eaton the 20 classification chrono restricting desert housing and Eaton stated, “I just work here.” Id. On 21 March 19, 2020, a committee at ISP acknowledged that plaintiff never should have been sent to 22 ISP. Id. On September 2, 2020, plaintiff passed out again due to extreme heat. Id. at 7. On the 23 same date, Eaton stopped plaintiff’s medication in retaliation for plaintiff’s complaints about his 24 treatment in the heat. Id. 25 Plaintiff’s allegations, while troubling, cannot survive screening as they lack sufficient 26 detail to establish deliberate indifference for an Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff must show 27 that the defendant knew of and deliberately disregarded a serious risk to plaintiff. Deliberate 28 indifference requires a showing that the defendant, acting with a state of mind more blameworthy 1 than negligence, denied, delayed, or interfered with the treatment of plaintiff’s serious medical 2 needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 3 (1976). The indifference to medical needs must be substantial; mere malpractice, or even gross 4 negligence, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. 5 In any amended complaint plaintiff should strive to (1) identify his serious medical need; 6 (2) identify the person or persons responsible for transferring plaintiff from HDSP to ISP; (3) 7 identify what that person or persons knew about the dangers posed by transferring plaintiff to a 8 desert institution; (4) allege whether defendants Payne and Muezo knew that the cell they housed 9 plaintiff in posed a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff and deliberately disregarded that 10 risk; (5) allege whether defendant Hull had the authority to transfer plaintiff from ISP and/or how 11 he acted or failed to act in way that caused plaintiff harm; and (6) allege whether defendant Eaton 12 acted or failed to act in a way that caused plaintiff harm. As for any purported First Amendment 13 retaliation claim against Eaton, plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that Eaton 14 discontinued plaintiff’s medication because plaintiff had complained. Plaintiff must also show 15 that the discontinuation of the medication was adverse to his health. 16 Leave to Amend 17 Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff chooses to file an 18 amended complaint it should observe the following: 19 Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 20 participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 21 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a 22 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is 23 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). The complaint should also describe, 24 in sufficient detail, how each defendant personally violated or participated in the violation of his 25 rights. The court will not infer the existence of allegations that have not been explicitly set forth 26 in the amended complaint. 27 The amended complaint must contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). ] Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 2 || George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 3 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 4 | without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L-.R. 220. This is because an amended 5 || complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 6 || earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 7 || F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 8 | being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 9 | 1967)). 10 Finally, the court notes that any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in 11 | fulfilling the above requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of 12 || procedural or factual background which has no bearing on his legal claims. 13 Conclusion 14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 15 1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; 16 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 17 accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 18 Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith; 19 3. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days 20 from the date of service of this order; and 21 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action for the reasons 22 stated herein. 23 || DATED: March 5, 2021. tid, PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28