United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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).
Amended Complaint suffers from deficiencies requiring
dismissal if not corrected in a second amended complaint.
Section 1983 Claims
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).
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' ...