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.

Mathew Wallace v. Pierce County Sheriff's Department

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

November 12, 2019

William James Mathew Wallace II, Plaintiff,
v.
Pierce County Sheriff's Department et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge

         Plaintiff William James Mathew Wallace 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 Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court declines to serve Plaintiff's Amended Complaint but provides Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by December 12, 2019 to cure the deficiencies identified herein.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail, filed his Original Complaint on May 13, 2019. Dkt. 13. On May 16, 2019, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause or Amend advising Plaintiff he had named improper Defendants and failed to allege personal participation. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on July 22, 2019. Dkt. 27.

         Three days later, on July 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement seeking permission to file a supplement to his Amended Complaint. Dkt. 28. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement and allowed Plaintiff to file a proposed second amended complaint on or before September 3, 2019. Dkt. 30.

         Plaintiff did not file a proposed second amended complaint, but instead filed a Motion to Submit Documentary Evidence. Dkt. 32. Plaintiff sought permission to file documentary evidence related to his medical care. Dkt. 32. The Court denied the Motion to Submit Documentary Evidence, but again ordered Plaintiff to file a proposed second amended complaint on or before October 30, 2019. Dkt. 33. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to file a proposed second amended complaint on or before October 30, 2019, the Court would screen the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27) to determine if Plaintiff had sufficiently stated a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. Plaintiff did not file a proposed second amended complaint. Therefore, the Court proceeds to screen the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27).

         AMENDED COMPLAINT

         In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Dkt. 27. Plaintiff has named the following as Defendants: Dr. Miguel Balderama; Irina Hughes, ARNP; Bridget Stixrood, RN; Elizabeth Warren, RN; Meghan Bailey, RN; Sergeant Blower, Sergeant Heishman; Jon Slohouser, Medical Director; City of Tacoma; and Pierce County. Dkt. 27. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Dkt. 27.

         DISCUSSION

         Under 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).

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint suffers from deficiencies requiring dismissal if not corrected in a second amended complaint.

         I. Section 1983 Claims

         In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege that: (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 step, 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).

         Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment when he was denied medical treatment for his leg, received incorrect medication and was denied access to an ADA shower and cell. Dkt. 27. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff was not incarcerated following a formal adjudication of guilt at the time of the alleged violations. Dkt. 27. As such, conditions of confinement imposed on him are governed by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). “Because pretrial detainees' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to prisoners' ...


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.