Ronje v. Kramer
| Decision Date | 06 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1:15-cv-01753 LJO-BAM (PC) |
| Parties | EDWARD RONJE, Plaintiff, v. NORM KRAMER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Plaintiff Edward Ronje ("Plaintiff") is committed to a state hospital under California's Sexually Violent Predators Act ("SVPA") and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's complaint, filed on November 19, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1).
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff is currently housed at Coalinga State Hospital. The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Plaintiff names as defendants: Norm Kramer, ex-Executive Director of State Mental Hospitals; Pam Ahlin, Executive Director of State Hospitals; Audrey King, ex-Director of Coalinga State Hospital; Cliff Allenby, ex-Executive Director of five hospitals; Stephen Mayberg, ex- director of five hospitals; Jerry Brown, Governor; and Fresno Board of Supervisors. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants are personally and officially liable for the conduct alleged in the complaint.
Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff alleges that he is a civil detainee. He alleges that the defendants were negligent, deliberately indifferent and recklessly indifferent in placing plaintiff in an environment where he was exposed to highly dangerous Valley Fever. Plaintiff alleges his placement in Pleasant Valley subjected him to Valley Fever (Coccidiodomycosis). Plaintiff was never informed of the disease or of the risks of the disease. Plaintiff alleges that defendants had specific and medical knowledge of the danger Coccidiodomycosis before he was transported and as early as 1991.
Plaintiff alleges he is an African-American male who is civilly detained under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Plaintiff alleges that each of the individual defendants was acting within the scope of their employment in the development and promotion of incarceration of individuals at dangerous locations. All of the defendants are legally responsible for the operation of the California State Hospital and for the health and safety of the persons in custody. Plaintiff alleges that all defendants were agents of one another and responsible in whole or in part for the operation of the hospitals and for the health and safety of the persons held in custody. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are obligated to provide psychiatric treatment, support and medical services consistent with the American with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff alleges that support services depart from accepted risk management practices which expose patients to risk of infection of Valley Fever spores. Plaintiff lists various ways that support services depart from accepted ways of risk management. (ECF No. 1 p. 12.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refuse to assess individuals and checkups for Valley Fever spores. Plaintiff alleges he has been deprived of any protective medical health services. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to properly monitor, train and supervise the environment. Plaintiff alleges Defendants erroneously assumed the disease was not life threatening and condoned the policies, practices and custom of deliberate indifference to the health and safety of patients.
Plaintiff's first claim is a state law claim for Negligence against the individuals in that he was dependent upon defendants' care and that they failed to treat his needs and placed him in a dangerous location. Plaintiff alleges he is held in an environment that could potentially cause him permanent crippling physical injury. Plaintiff's second claim is a state law claim for failure to provide adequate facility equipment and personnel. Plaintiff alleges that personnel have not been adequately trained and the facilities and equipment are not adequately maintained so as to minimize the risk of exposure to spores and the disease. Plaintiff's third claim is a state law claim for Abuse of Dependent Adult.
Plaintiff's fourth claim for deliberate indifference under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and for violation of the American's with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff alleges he was committed for mental health treatment, but "has experienced substantial limitations in hisphysical abilities on different occasions." He alleges that he is protected by his mental impairment. He alleges he was discriminated against because of Defendants' disregard of a possible medical injury to Plaintiff as a result of the Valley Fever spores.
Plaintiff seeks as relief general and special damages and punitive damages. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction and declaratory relief that defendants violated the laws.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.
The complaint is convoluted and disjointed and does not contain a short and plain statement of the claims showing that he is entitled to relief as Rule 8 requires. It is comprised of conclusory statements. Plaintiff's generalized and conclusory statements and recitals of the elements of a claim are not sufficient. Plaintiff fails to describe specific actions taken by the Defendants named in his complaint which violated his constitutional rights. The complaint lumps Defendants together and fails to distinguish adequately claims and alleged wrongs among Defendants. A plaintiff suing multiple defendants must allege the basis of his claim against each defendant to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his complaint. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must set forth factual allegations against each named defendant sufficient to state a claim.
At this point, the submission of evidence is premature as Plaintiff is only required to state a prima facie claim for relief via his factual allegations. If Plaintiff feels compelled to submit exhibits with an amended complaint, he is reminded that such exhibits must be attached to theamended pleading and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c). For example, Plaintiff must state "see page 2 of Exhibit A" or something similar to direct the Court to the specific exhibit and the specific portion thereof and he should explain what he thinks the exhibit shows. Finally, if Plaintiff attaches exhibits to his complaint, he is advised that the Court will not wade through exhibits to verify evidentiary support. Rather, his allegations must be sufficient standing alone.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:
Every person who, under color of [state law]...subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution...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. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed. 2d 611 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed. 2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that "[a] person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right,...
To continue reading
Request your trial