Pimentel v. Hanford Police Officers Alfred Rivera

• Decision Date: 19 September 2019
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 1:19-cv-01088-AWI-SKO
• Parties: CESAR PIMENTEL, Plaintiff, v. HANFORD POLICE OFFICERS ALFRED RIVERA and MARK CARRILLO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

CESAR PIMENTEL, Plaintiff, v. HANFORD POLICE OFFICERS ALFRED RIVERA and MARK CARRILLO, Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-01088-AWI-SKO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 19, 2019

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff Cesar Pimentel, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against Hanford Police Officers Alfred Rivera ("Officer Rivera") and Mark Carrillo ("Officer Carrillo") (collectively "Defendants"). (Doc. 1 ("Compl.").) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on August 19, 2019. (Docs. 2 & 3.) As discussed below, Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for failure to provide medical assistance in Claim I on which he may proceed and may be able to correct the deficiencies in his pleading for his other claim. Thus, Plaintiff may either file a first amended complaint correcting the deficiencies or advise the Court that he is willing to proceed only on his failure to provide medical assistance claim.

B. Screening Requirement and Standard

In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen each case, and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

The Court's screening of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is governed by the following standards. A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what plaintiff's claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991).

C. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that on January 8, 2019, he was pulled over by Defendants. (Compl. at 3, 5.) Due to Plaintiff being under community supervision, Defendants conducted a search of Plaintiff's person and vehicle. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, prior to being searched, he "swallowed a large quantity of drugs." (Id. at 3.) During the search, Defendants found on Plaintiff's person "a glass pipe, a bindle of meth, and pills," as well as $2,909.00. (Id. at 3, 5) Plaintiff alleges Defendants located "two cellphones and 'various amounts of cash'" when searching Plaintiff's vehicle.

Plaintiff alleges that upon being detained and placed in the back of Defendants' squad car, he began to feel the effects of the drugs and advised Defendants he had swallowed them. (Compl. at 3.) He "continuously yelled, begged, and pleaded to be taken to the hospital," but was ignored by Defendants. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, he told Defendants, "I can't see, I can't breath[e]. I swallow[ed] an ounce of dope." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that instead of calling for emergency medicalservices, Defendants "ignored my pleas for help for an ambulance and stood by while they waited for a tow truck." (Id. at 3-4.) Defendants then transported Plaintiff to the jail and "forcibly placed [him] in a restraint chair with a spit mask." (Id. at 4.)

Once at the jail, the nurse "refused to clear" Plaintiff and "advised to call [emergency medical services]." (Compl. at 4.) According to Plaintiff, he was then "rushed" to the emergency room, where he was admitted with a body temperature of approximately 108 degrees and was hospitalized for a total of 10 days. (Id. at 3-4.) Plaintiff alleges that more than two hours elapsed from the time he asked Defendants for medical attention and the time of his admission to the hospital. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff contends in Claim I that Defendants' failure to seek or supply immediate medical attention violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Id. at 3, 4.)

In Claim II, Plaintiff alleges that Officer Rivera collected only the two cell phones as evidence from the search of Plaintiff's vehicle, leaving Plaintiff's wallet, ATM card, credit cards, and cash in the car, which was towed. (Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff's alleges that these items were "lost and unaccounted for," and Officer Rivera's failure to collect these items as evidence constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Compl. at 7.)

As discussed in detail below, Plaintiff's allegations in Claim I state a cognizable claim for failure to provide medical assistance against Defendants on which he should be allowed to proceed. However, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim in Claim II. Thus, Plaintiff may choose to proceed on the failure to provide medical assistance claim identified in Claim I, or he may attempt to cure the defects in his pleading by filing a first amended complaint.

D. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, since plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Court must construe the allegations of the Complaint liberally and must afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). "[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)).

Further, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do . . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.") (internal citations omitted).

2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). "Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred." Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec'y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted).It states in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts from which it may be inferred (1) he was deprived of a federal right, and (2) a person or entity who committed the alleged violation acted under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Williams v. Gorton, 529 F.2d 668, 670 (9th Cir. 1976).

Section 1983 "creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation." Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1230 (1997); see Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.")...