(PC) James v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-cv-0063 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and seeking relief 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 2, 2024, the court recommended that this action be 19 dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint. Because plaintiff filed an amended 20 complaint on April 11, 2024, however, the court’s April 2, 2024 findings and recommendations 21 will be vacated. 22 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 24 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 27 As with plaintiff original complaint, plaintiff’s claims in his amended complaint center 28 around the release of at least some of his medical records from some unidentified person at the 1 Sacramento County Jail to attorney Nicole Cahill. Plaintiff identifies three defendants: the 2 County of Sacramento, Ms. Cahill, and the “Medical Records Director” at the Sacramento County 3 Jail. Ms. Cahill works for the law firm Longyear & Larva and represents Sacramento County Jail 4 employees, including medical professionals, in James v. County of Sacramento, 2:22-cv-2193 5 DAD JDP, another case filed by plaintiff pending in this court. 6 As for the County of Sacramento, municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable under § 7 1983 for the actions of their employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 585 at 691, 8 694 (1978). “Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by 9 its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, 10 inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. 11 Plaintiff fails to point to anything suggesting that any of his federal rights were violated through 12 the execution of a County of Sacramento policy or custom. 13 As to Ms. Cahill, apparently she obtained and reviewed some of plaintiff’s medical 14 records from the Sacramento County Jail. Plaintiff fails to show how this amounts to a violation 15 of any federal right. Plaintiff asserts a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but that is not the case 16 as the records of the Sacramento County Jail do not belong to him, but to Sacramento County. 17 Similarly, there is no indication the “Medical Records Director,” assuming that is an 18 identifiable person, violated any of plaintiff’s federal rights. 19 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which 20 relief can be granted. Because the court already gave plaintiff an opportunity to amend 21 highlighting the same flaws identified herein, granting leave to amend a second time appears 22 futile. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s April 2, 2024 24 findings and recommendations are vacated. 25 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed; and 27 2. This case be closed. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 2 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 3 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 4 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 5 || time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 6 || Cir. 1991). 7 || Dated: September 12, 2024 / a8 } i | / p , a ce CAROLYNK. DELANEY 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 | 14 jame0063.fis 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28