1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ABEL ARIAS, Case No. 24-cv-04622-RMI

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

9 v. TO AMEND

10 GRUBAUGH, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Standard of Review 17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 18 redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 19 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 20 claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 21 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 22 Further, it should be noted that pleadings submitted by pro se parties must be liberally construed. 23 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” While specific facts are not necessary, the 26 statement needs to give the defendant fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon 27 which it rests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Although a plaintiff need not include 1 cause of action and state conclusions; rather a plaintiff must state factual allegations sufficient to 2 raise the entitlement to relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 3 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 4 plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The Supreme Court recently explained this standard: “[w]hile 5 legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 6 allegations . . . [and] [w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 7 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 8 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 9 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 10 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 11 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 12 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 13 Legal Claims 14 Plaintiff discusses issues with the conditions of confinement at Martinez Detention Facility 15 and West County Detention Facility. Plaintiff appears to be a pretrial detainee. 16 Inmates who sue prison officials for damages for injuries suffered while in custody may do 17 so under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause or, if not yet convicted, 18 under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 19 (1979); Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2016). But under both 20 clauses, the inmate must show that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference. Id. at 21 1068. 22 In the context of claims for failure to protect, the standard under the Eighth Amendment to 23 prove deliberate indifference is different than the standard to prove deliberate indifference under 24 the Fourteenth Amendment. Whereas a convicted prisoner must prove an individual defendant’s 25 subjective awareness of a risk of harm in order to prevail on a failure-to-protect claim under the 26 Eighth Amendment, a pretrial detainee need not do the same in order to prevail on a failure-to- 27 protect claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Castro, 833 F.3d at 1068-70 (holding that 1 claims brought by pretrial detainees, also applies to failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial 2 detainees). Specifically, a pretrial detainee need not “prove an individual defendant’s subjective 3 intent to punish in the context of a . . . failure-to protect claim.” Id. at 1070. A pretrial detainee 4 who asserts a due process claim for failure to protect instead must prove “more than negligence 5 but less than subjective intent – something akin to reckless disregard.” Id. at 1071. 6 A claim for a violation of a detainee’s right to adequate medical care arises under the 7 Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 8 F.3d 1118, 1122 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2018). The claim is evaluated under an objective deliberate 9 indifference standard.

10 [T]he elements of a pretrial detainee’s medical care claim against an individual defendant under the due process clause of the Fourteenth 11 Amendment are: (i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) 12 those conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available 13 measures to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk 14 involved—making the consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused 15 the plaintiff’s injuries. 16 Id. at 1125. For the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be objectively 17 unreasonable – “a test that will necessarily turn[] on the facts and circumstances of each particular 18 care.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A lack of due care by a state official is 19 not enough. See Alexander v. Nguyen, 78F.4th 1140, 1144-46 (9th Cir. 2023). The four-part test 20 articulated in Gordon requires the plaintiff to prove more than negligence, but less than subjective 21 intent – something akin to reckless disregard. Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125. 22 The complaint does not present specific claims but discusses plaintiff’s treatment at two 23 jails from July 2022 to July 2024. Plaintiff identifies approximately ten defendants, but he fails to 24 discuss the actions of many of the defendants and he does not describe how the defendants 25 violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff raises numerous issues, but he appears to focus on the 26 failure to protect him from an assault by another detainee and the denial of medical care and 27 medical supplies. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to provide more information. It 1 should focus on a few related issues and specifically describe how individual defendants violated 2 || his constitutional rights. He must also specify which jail the events occurred and only include 3 || defendants that are related to his claims. Plaintiff must indicate if he is convicted prisoner or 4 || pretrial detainee. 5 CONCLUSION 6 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards 7 set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date 8 this order is filed, and it must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 9 || words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 10 || replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See 11 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material 12 || from the original Complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result 13 in dismissal of this case. 14 2. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 3 15 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk, headered “Notice of a 16 || Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 3 17 may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 41(b). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: October 21, 2024 21 Mt Z 22

RQBERT M. ILLMAN

23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28