(PC) Huntington v. Sacramento County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL HUNTINGTON, Case No. 2:24-cv-0690-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 15 Defendant.

18 Plaintiff, a detainee proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendant Sacramento County and an indeterminate number of “Doe” medical staff failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment. ECF No. 1 at 2-5. For the reasons stated below, his claims against the county are non-cognizable, and his claims against the individual medical providers cannot proceed until he specifically identifies a defendant who can be served. I will deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, as moot because he has already paid the filing fee.

24 Screening Order 25 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 26 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted).

13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017).

17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

20 II. Analysis 21 Plaintiff alleges that on September 10, 2023, he began experiencing fever, chills, and vomiting. ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims that despite his submitting multiple requests for medical care, staff at the Sacramento County Jail did not provide him with care, and his symptoms worsened. Id. Eventually, he fell, struck his head, and was rushed to a hospital where he was diagnosed with kidney failure. Id. He also alleges that, after returning to the jail, staff failed to provide him with adequate post-surgical care. Id. at 5, 7-11. These allegations fail to state a claim against Sacramento County, because plaintiff does not attribute the failings in care to any policy or custom of the county. See Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 961, 973 (9th Cir. 2021).

1 His claims against the individual providers appear broadly cognizable insofar as they allege constitutionally deficient care, but they cannot proceed in current form for two reasons. First, plaintiff has failed to distinguish between the responsible individuals. He broadly alleges that an uncertain number of medical staff were responsible for the inadequacy in care but fails to allege how each individual defendant was responsible by their own action or inaction. As such, he has failed to provide any defendant with adequate notice of the specific claims against him or her.

7 Second, absent identification of at least one defendant, no one can be served in connection with these claims, and this action cannot proceed. I note that plaintiff does refer to some deputies by name in the complaint, but it is unclear whether he intends to bring any claim against these individuals, insofar as they are not identified in the caption.

11 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty days that addresses the foregoing deficiencies. He is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number. If he fails to file an amended complaint within the deadline, I may recommend dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend.

19 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

21 3. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

24 4. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

25 5. Plaintiff’s motion for in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is denied as moot in light of plaintiff paying the filing fee. > IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ January 13, 2025 Q_——_.

4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE