1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDRES VILLA FLORES, Case No. 24-cv-09431-LJC

8 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

10 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE SANTA RITA JAIL, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Andres Villa Flores, a pretrial detainee at the Santa Rita Jail proceeding pro se, filed a civil 14 rights complaint pursuant to

against “Alameda County Sheriff’s Office staff at 15 Santa Rita Jail,” “Wellpath Medical Services staff RNs/doctors,” and “Stanford Health Care staff 16 RNs/doctors.” The Court previously dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 6. 17 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), Dkt. No. 7, which is before the Court for 18 screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons identified below, the FAC will again be 19 dismissed with leave to amend. 20 DISCUSSION 21 A. Standard of Review 22 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 23 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 25 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 27 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 2 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 3 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 4 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (citations omitted). 5 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 6 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 7 do. . .. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 8 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 9 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

. All or part of 10 a complaint filed by a prisoner may be dismissed sua sponte if the prisoner’s claims lack an 11 arguable basis in either law or in fact. 12 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 13 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 14 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 15 Atkins,

(1988). 16 B. Legal Claims 17 Plaintiff’s FAC only lists as defendant “Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Santa Rita Jail, 18 et al.,” but identifies a number of individuals by name or role throughout the narrative section. 19 He alleges as follows: he was improperly placed on “Move In Restraints” status on July 20 29, 2024, the day after he was taken into Alameda County custody. The custody status caused him 21 cruel and unusual punishment. He was held in the court holding cells in restraints all day long, and 22 was unable to use the restroom or sit or lie down. 23 Because of the restraints, plaintiff slipped and fell and injured himself on July 30, 2024, 24 while being transported to court. Plaintiff is mobility impaired. He previously had knee 25 reconstruction and foot and elbow surgery. He was unable to brace himself in any way while 26 exiting. The only deputy within the transport vehicle, Deputy Lawrence, did not assist him in 27 exiting the vehicle, and the vehicle did not have handrails. Plaintiff also alleges that the county has 1 vehicle while they are in restraints. 2 Plaintiff was transported to Stanford Valley Care in Pleasanton following this incident. The 3 medical staff did not ask plaintiff any questions about his injuries directly. He attempted to 4 address his attending Nurse Doe, but Nurse Doe was “more concerned about making the escorting 5 deputies feel comfortable and getting coffee for them.” His repeated requests to talk to a doctor 6 went unanswered. A CT scan was done only of his head, as the deputy who witnessed his injury 7 had reported that he had only hit his head on the transport van cage door and that was the extent of 8 his injury. A female Doctor Doe came to his bed area and spoke to the escorting deputies, telling 9 them that plaintiff was cleared to be returned to Santa Rita jail. Plaintiff told the transporting 10 deputies T. Nelson and A. McCallon that he could not be cleared because he had not been 11 examined nor had any direct conversation with the Doe nurse or Doe doctor. 12 Plaintiff alleges that deputies T. Nelson and A. McCallon violated his rights by accepting 13 Doctor Doe’s conclusion that he was medically cleared while knowing that he had not been 14 properly examined. Plaintiff’s neck and lower back and tail bone were not x-rayed until months 15 later. 16 Plaintiff alleges ongoing failure at the jail to properly treat injury to his right hand, causing 17 permanent damage. Plaintiff injured his right hand when he slipped while exiting the shower on 18 November 28, 2024 and landed on it. He was using the assigned handicapped shower and it had no 19 floor grid to prevent slipping on standing water. Doe Nurse 4 viewed his hand on November 29 20 and said it looked like it could be fractured and she would inform a doctor and make sure he got x- 21 rays, but that did not happen. Plaintiff’s requests for medical care went unanswered for six days by 22 different nurses and one doctor. Plaintiff also informed housing staff about his injury. RN H. Choi 23 saw his hand along with three other day shift nurses while his index bone was popping up from the 24 top of his hand. He was also seen by a doctor on the doctor’s line, Doe Doctor 4, on Sunday, 25 December 1, 2024, who would not send him out for treatment. Doe Doctor 4 informed him that he 26 had an ortho doctor office visit coming up and that it would not matter that a week had passed 27 before his bones would be casted. Plaintiff “feel[s] this is just their way (Wellpath Medical 1 long as possible, becoming chronic care, allowing a name change of an injury to become a method 2 of how an injury is post treated.” Dkt. No. 7 at 15. Requests for outside treatment are blocked and 3 then inmates leave jail custody. 4 Ortho Doctor Doe, who cast his hand, continues to insist that there is nothing wrong with 5 his hand although it is easy to see the damage. Plaintiff’s hand developed an abscess that he 6 believes was caused by Ortho Doctor Doe not casting his hand correctly. 7 Doctor Doe 3 prescribed medication for the infection as well as hot pads and dressing 8 changes for the open wound that was leaking pus and blood after Ortho Doctor Doe refused to 9 treat plaintiff. It was only by luck that Doctor Doe 3 was in the housing unit and willing to speak 10 to plaintiff at that time. 11 The RN who was assisting Ortho Doctor Doe violated plaintiff’s rights by allowing him to 12 be sent out of the Ortho Doctor Doe’s office without medical attention and treatment for his open 13 wound. The RN only provided him with a hand wrap and dressing gall after seeing the pus and 14 blood. Ortho Doctor Doe also viewed the pus and blood. On February 18, 2025, plaintiff was 15 again sent out of Ortho Doctor Doe’s office, who refused to acknowledge that plaintiff’s hand 16 wound still existed. Plaintiff’s index finger is set down further than his other fingers and there is a 17 lump behind the index knuckle. 18 Plaintiff has pain in his head, neck, and shoulder at night. He cannot stand or sit for long 19 periods of time without pain and numbness. 20 Plaintiff seeks damages. He has also filed a separate motion for injunctive relief. See Dkt. 21 No. 8 (asking for a “an order of treatment to my right hand”). Plaintiff may include his request for 22 injunctive relief if he chooses to file another amended complaint. Injunctive relief can only be 23 ordered against a party in the lawsuit. 24 C. Analysis 25 The Court previously dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend because he had 26 “not identified any appropriate defendants for his claim that he has not received adequate medical 27 treatment.” Dkt. No. 6 at 3. In his FAC, plaintiff has named a number of individuals throughout 1 second amended complaint (SAC), he must name who he wishes to sue and clearly identify each 2 person as a defendant. 3 Plaintiff raises two separate incidents in his complaint: a fall in July 2024 and another fall 4 in December 2024. He also challenges his treatment by different health care staff for injuries 5 caused by the falls. To the extent plaintiff alleges that both falls were the result of a failure to 6 accommodate his disability, the claims could be sufficiently related to properly belong in the same 7 lawsuit. Plaintiff may state a claim against Alameda County under Title II of the Americans with 8 Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation 9 Act, for denying him access to safe transport and showers and failing to accommodate his 10 disability by not providing a protective floor grid in the handicapped shower and by not providing 11 handrails in the transport van or any accommodations to enable him to safely exit the vehicle. See 12 Thompson v. Davis,

(9th Cir. 2002); Olmstead v. Zimring,

, 589- 13 91 (1999). 14 Plaintiff may also state a claim against Deputy Lawrence # 2512 under

15 for deliberate indifference to his safety needs in violation of the due process clause of the 16 Fourteenth Amendment for failing to help him exit the transport vehicle. 17 Plaintiff may also state a claim against the Doe Nurse 4 who saw him on November 29, 18 2024, as well as RN H. Choi, and the Doe Doctor 4 who saw him on December 1, 2024, and failed 19 to order emergent care despite his apparent serious hand injury. 20 Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a claim against Ortho Doctor Doe, Ortho Nurse Doe, and/or 21 Doctor Doe 3 because his allegations do not show that these people were objectively deliberately 22 indifferent to a serious medical need. Even medical negligence does not rise to the level of a 23 constitutional violation. 24 Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint within 28 days of the date of this order to 25 identify to the Court whom he intends to sue as to defendants and for what claims. He may 26 provide more detail about his allegations against Ortho Doctor Doe, Ortho Nurse Doe, and/or 27 Doctor Doe 3 to show how they were deliberately indifferent. He should provide the dates of the 1 each time. He should be aware that a difference of opinion between himself and a provider about 2 || what treatment was required does not amount to a constitutional violation. 3 Plaintiff also claims that his classification status violated his constitutional rights, but 4 || names no defendant for that claim. Plaintiff may choose to name a defendant for this claim if he 5 files a SAC, 6 CONCLUSION 7 1. Even liberally construed, the allegations do not give rise to any federal claims against 8 the defendant. These claims are dismissed with leave to amend to remedy the deficiencies noted 9 above. 10 2. If Flores wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), he must do so within 11 twenty-eight days from the date of this order. The SAC must include the caption and civil case 12 || number used in this Order and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 5 13 Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Flores must include in 14 it all the allegations he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 3 15 1992). He may not incorporate material from his original complaint or FAC by reference. Failure 16 || to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice. 3 17 3. It is Flores’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the court informed of 18 || any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of 19 || Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result 20 || in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 A1(b). 22 4. The Clerk shall include a copy of the Court’s prisoner complaint form with plaintiff's 23 copy of this Order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: May 21, 2025 26 pf 27 □□ 4 08 web OS United States Magistrate Judge