United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge.
Ronnie Lee Hicks II, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed and screened
Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court declines to serve Plaintiff's Complaint but
provides Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by
November 8, 2019, to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
who is a pre-trial detainee housed at Pierce County Jail,
alleges his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
were violated when he was denied replacement prescription
bi-focal eyeglasses. Dkt. 9.
seeks monetary damages and asks to be transported to his
current optometrist for an exam and prescription glasses of
his choice. Dkt. 9 at 4.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is
required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“requires a complaint to include a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what
the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007)
(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). In
addition, the complaint must include more than “naked
assertions, ” “labels and conclusions” or
“a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557.
order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered a violation of
rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal
statute, and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a
person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton v.
Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first
step in a § 1983 claim is therefore to identify the
specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To
satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts
showing how individually named defendants caused, or
personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the
complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981).
Complaint suffers from deficiencies requiring dismissal if
not corrected in an amended complaint.
alleges he was denied replacement prescription bi-focal
eyeglasses. Dkt. 9. A pretrial detainee's right to
adequate medical care arises under the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange,
888 F.3d 1118, 1120 (9th Cir. 2018). The elements of such a
claim are: (1) “the defendant made an intentional
decision with respect to the conditions under which the
plaintiff was confined”; (2) “those conditions
put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious
harm”; (3) “the defendant did not take reasonable
available measures to abate that risk, even though a
reasonable official in the circumstances would have
appreciated the high degree of risk involved-making the
consequences of the defendant's conduct obvious”;
and (4) “by not taking such measures, the defendant
caused the plaintiff's injuries.” Id. at
respect to the second element, a medical need is serious
“if the failure to treat the prisoner's condition
could result in further significant injury or the
‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'”
McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)).
“The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or
patient would find important and worthy of comment or
treatment; the presence of a medical condition that
significantly affects an individual's daily activities;
or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples
of indications that a prisoner has a ‘serious' need
for medical treatment.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at
Plaintiff alleges he was denied replacement prescription
bi-focal glasses and as a result, he saw spots in his vision.
Dkt. 9 at 3. Plaintiff alleges he wears two pairs of 2.00
reading glasses at the same time and an additional third pair
of 3.25 reading glasses to read and write. Dkt. 9 at 2.
However, aside from complaining of spots in his vision,
Plaintiff does not allege he suffered from any harm or injury
as a result of the lack of replacement prescription bi-focal
eyeglasses or the lack of replacement prescription bi-focal
eyeglasses affected his daily activities. Therefore,
Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating the denial of
replacement prescription bi-focal eyeglasses put him at a
substantial risk of suffering serious harm. See
Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1120; McGuckin, 974 F.2d at
1059-1060; Rodriguez v. D'Agostini, 2018 WL
1256766, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) (dismissing claim
where plaintiff required reading glasses finding the
plaintiff had not alleged a serious medical need); Canell
v. Multnomah Cnty.,141 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1057 (D. Or.
2001) (deprivation of reading glasses does not state Eighth
Amendment claim) (internal citation omitted); Morales v.
Cal. Forensic Medical Group, Inc., 2010 WL 1404762, at
*2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010) (dismissing with leave to amend
where plaintiff requested glasses for poor vision and noting
“an Eighth Amendment claim can be stated if, after
confiscation of glasses and subsequent denial of medical
treatment, significant consequences result.”);
Bernardino v. Sandoval, 2017 WL 4391705, at *4 (S.D.
Cal. Oct. 3, 2017) (dismissing complaint without leave to
amend where plaintiff alleged defendants broke his glasses
during cell search, but ...