Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hardie v. Nisqually Corrections Superintendent

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

March 25, 2015

JEFFREY L. HARDIE, Plaintiff,
v.
NISQUALLY CORRECTIONS SUPERINTENDENT, DR. SHUE, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, Defendants.

ORDER TO AMEND COMPLAINT OR SHOW CAUSE

KAREN L. STROMBOM, Magistrate Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Hardie, an inmate at the Pierce County Jail, proceeding in forma pauperis, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging that his civil rights were violated when he was denied medical care while incarcerated at the Nisqually Corrections Center. Dkt. 6. The Court declines to serve the complaint because it contains pleading deficiencies. As discussed below, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause - by filing an amended complaint by April 27, 2015 - why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that when he was booked into the Nisqually Corrections Center on "Oct. 5, 2015, " there was no booking nurse to access his medical needs or to verify his medications for seizure disorder, pain, anxiety, and depression. He was seen by Dr. Shue, a medical doctor at the Nisqually Corrections Center, on "10-6-12" when he was examined. At that time, Plaintiff shared information about his medications and treating physicians and that Dr. Shue faxed releases for information. On October 11th [year not stated], Plaintiff was seen by Jane Doe PA who confirmed his medications but ordered only a small portion of his required medications. He received no medications for two more days and during that time he suffered pain and several seizures, including a gran mal seizure which required paramedics to be dispatched for his treatment.

Plaintiff also alleges that he was placed in administrative segregation where he was denied access to running water, medical care, clothing, mattress, bedding, and with human feces on the walls. Plaintiff does not indicate when this occurred.

Plaintiff sues the Superintendent of the Nisqually Corrections Center, Dr. Shue, and the John and Jane Doe officers at the Nisqually Corrections Center. He seeks an unspecified amount of compensation for mental anguish, pain and suffering, and being confined in an unsanitary environment. Id., p. 4.

DISCUSSION

The Court will dismiss a complaint at any time if the action fails to state a claim, raises frivolous or malicious claims, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To sustain a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show (a) that she suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (b) that the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state or federal law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). In general, a § 1983 plaintiff must allege that a defendant's own conduct violated the plaintiff's civil rights because a defendant cannot be held liable solely on the basis of supervisory responsibility or position. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385-90 (1989); Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94 (1978).

Plaintiff's complaint suffers from deficiencies that, if not corrected in an amended complaint, require dismissal. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly what that individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that person is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that person's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). Plaintiff is further advised as follows:

A. Statute of Limitations

The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contains no statute of limitations. As such, the statute of limitations from the state cause of action most like a civil rights act is used. In Washington, a plaintiff has three years to file an action. Rose v. Rinaldi, 654 F.2d 546 (9th Cir.1981). The Washington statute for personal injury reads as follows:

The following actions shall be commenced within three years:... (2) An action for taking, detaining, or injury personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated.

RCW 4.16.080(2) (emphasis added).

Federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues. Tworivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999). A claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action. Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir.1996); see also Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.2001), quoting Tworivers, 174 F.3d at 992. The proper focus is upon the time of the discriminatory acts, not upon the time at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.