Salmon v. Skagit County Jail

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA [6] TROY E SALMON, Case No. 2:23-cv-00633-JNW-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, OR 8 PROVIDING LEAVE TO FILE AN SKAGIT COUNTY JAIL, AMENDED COMPLAINT [9] Defendants. [10] 11 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Troy Salmon’s motion to 12 proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 4. Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 13 § 1983. Having reviewed and screened Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A, 14 the Court finds the complaint fails to state a claim as to Skagit County Medical 15 Department. But the Court provides Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by June 16 9, 2023 to cure the deficiencies identified herein. The Clerk is instructed to re-note 17 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis to June 9, 2023. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff filed his proposed complaint on May 11, 2023, alleging § 1983 claims 20 arising while he was at the Skagit County Jail. Dkt. 4-1. He states he is convicted and 21 sentenced state prisoner. Plaintiff contends that Skagit County Jail Medical Department, 22 the only named defendant, improperly denied him treatment and medications that were 23 already approved. Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts he has cervical stenosis, degenerative [24] 1 arthritis, and neuropathy, and was unable to see a provider for five weeks. Id. at 5. 2 Plaintiff alleges that when he did see a provider, the provider did not prescribe the 3 proper medications. Id. Plaintiff asserts he has suffered pain; he requests monetary 4 damages from Defendant as well as payment for future treatments and specialists. Id. at 5 6. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is required to screen 8 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer 9 or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must “dismiss 10 the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, 11 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks 12 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C. § 13 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998). 14 I. Inadequate Medical Treatment 15 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to give him proper medical treatment for his 16 ailments. Based on this, it appears Plaintiff seeks to allege a violation of his Eighth 17 Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment rights. 18 When a claim of inadequate medical care is brought by a pretrial detainee, the 19 claim arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gordon v. 20 County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018). 21 To state a Fourteenth Amendment claim relating to medical care of a pre-trial 22 detainee, a plaintiff must include factual allegations that a state actor acted, or failed to [24] 1 act, in a manner that shows deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. 2 Gordon v. County of Orange, at 1124-25. 3 The elements are:“(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions put the 4 plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable 5 official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk involved – making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and 6 (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries.” [7] Id., at 1125 . The defendant’s conduct must be objectively unreasonable; concerning 8 element (iii), plaintiff is required to show more than negligence, but less than subjective 9 intent – “something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. (citations and internal quotations 10 omitted). 11 If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should clarify whether all or part of his 12 allegations would be Fourteenth Amendment claims because the facts occurred before 13 his conviction; or whether his allegations would be an Eighth Amendment claim 14 because the facts occurred after a trial or guilty plea – in other words, after he was 15 convicted. 16 The Eighth Amendment proscribes deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious 17 medical needs; it applies to persons who have been convicted of an offense. Estelle v. 18 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on 19 prison medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious 20 medical needs.’ ” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Estelle v. 21 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires 22 the plaintiff to show (1) “ ‘a serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat 23 a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and [24] 1 wanton infliction of pain,’ ” and (2) “the defendant's response to the need was 2 deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 3 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 4 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a 5 purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need, and 6 harm caused by the indifference.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 7 1060). In order to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must 8 allege sufficient facts to support a claim that the named defendants “[knew] of and 9 disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [Plaintiff's] health ....” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 10 825, 837(1994). 11 In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that 12 a prisoner's civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must 13 be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support 14 this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th 15 Cir.1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105–06). “[A] complaint that a physician has been 16 negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of 17 medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not 18 become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 19 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir.1995); 20 McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1050 , overruled on other grounds, WMX, 104 F.3d at 1136. 21 Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious 22 medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.1990). [24] 1 Also, “a difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical 2 authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. 3 Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981). To prevail, Plaintiff “must show that the 4 course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the 5 circumstances ... and ... that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an 6 excessive risk to plaintiff's health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th 7 Cir.1986). A prisoner's mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not support 8 a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989). 9 Plaintiff fails to attribute any action or inaction to an individual person or persons. 10 Plaintiff refers to a provider, but failed to name them as a defendant. Rather, he names 11 only Skagit County Medical Department as a defendant. 12 The medical department is not a legal entity capable of being sued under § 1983. 13 Rather, Skagit County, a municipality, would be the proper defendant. See Monell v. 14 New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); Wright v. Clark 15 County Sheriff’s Office, No. 3:15-cv-05887 BHS-JRC, 2016 WL 1643988 , *2 (W.D. 16 Wash. April 26, 2016). To set forth a claim against a municipality, a plaintiff must show 17 the defendant’s employees or agents acted through an official custom, pattern, or policy 18 permitting deliberate indifference to, or violating, the plaintiff’s civil rights, or that the 19 entity ratified the unlawful conduct. Id. at 690-91 . A plaintiff must show (1) deprivation of 20 a constitutional right; (2) the municipality has a policy; (3) the policy amounts to 21 deliberate indifference to a plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) the policy is the 22 moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.3d 1470 , 23 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). [24] 1 A municipality “cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor—or, 2 in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat 3 superior theory.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 (emphasis in original). Similarly, mere 4 negligence in training employees cannot support municipal liability; instead, plaintiff 5 must allege facts demonstrating the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to 6 the rights of those who deal with municipal employees. City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 388– 7 89. Finally, a single incident of unconstitutional action is generally insufficient to state a 8 claim for municipal liability. Benavidez v. Cnty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1154 (9th 9 Cir. 2021). 10 Plaintiff has not named the governmental entity Skagit County as a defendant 11 and has also not alleged facts regarding any policy, practice, or custom, of Skagit 12 County as a plausible basis for liability. See Dkt. 1-1. If Plaintiff seeks to sue Skagit 13 County, he must name Skagit County as a defendant and allege facts sufficient to meet 14 the required elements of a claim against a municipality -- and plausibly assert a claim 15 that Skagit County violated his federal constitutional or statutory rights. 16 If Plaintiff seeks to sue person(s) in their individual capacity, he must 17 demonstrate that each of the named individual defendants personally participated in the 18 deprivation of his rights. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Due to the deficiencies described above, the Court will not serve the complaint. 21 Plaintiff may show cause why his claim should not be dismissed or may file an amended 22 complaint to cure, if possible, the deficiencies noted herein, on or before June 9, 2023. 23 If an amended complaint is filed, it must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its entirety and [24] 1 contain the same case number. Any cause of action alleged in the original complaint 2 that is not alleged in the amended complaint is waived. Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 3 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa 4 Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). 5 The Court will screen the amended complaint to determine whether it states a 6 claim for relief cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . If the amended complaint is not 7 timely filed or fails to adequately address the issues raised herein, the Court will 8 recommend dismissal of this action. 9 The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. 10 § 1983 civil rights complaint, a copy of this Order and the Pro Se Information Sheet. The 11 Clerk is also directed to re-note Plaintiff motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 4) to 12 June 9, 2023. [13] 14 Dated this 16th day of May, 2023. [15] A [16] Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge