United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge.
an inmate at the Santiam Correctional Institution, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to an Order entered this date, the Court granted
Plaintiffs Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
However, for the reasons set forth below, the. Court
dismisses Plaintiffs Complaint.
names as Defendants the State of Oregon, Polk County, the
Polk County Jail (the "Jail"), Jail Director
Captain Isham, Deputy Reese, Deputy Cook and Deputy Kong.
Plaintiff includes the designation "et al" in the
caption of his Complaint but does not identify any additional
Defendants in the Complaint itself, except that Plaintiff
does refer to a Deputy Smalley in one claim.
alleges that while incarcerated at the Polk County Jail from
September to October of 2018, Defendants denied Plaintiff
proper medical care and his right to doctor-patient
privacy. Plaintiff alleges he is on insulin, and
that there was no medical staff on duty to properly
administer and monitor his medication. Instead, he alleges,
Deputies Reese, Cook, Kong, Smalley, and others, who were not
properly licensed or trained to give Plaintiff insulin did
so, putting Plaintiffs health at risk. Plaintiff also alleges
that Deputy Cook denied Plaintiff food "to balance my
insulin and sugar needs during my low CBG needs."
of remedy, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring access
to medical care for Jail inmates in the future, as well as
training for deputies on proper procedures for dealing with
medical issues. Plaintiff also seeks money damages.
district court must dismiss an action initiated by a prisoner
seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee, if the Court determines that the action (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When a plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the court must construe the pleadings
liberally and afford the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Moreover, before dismissing a pro se civil rights
complaint for failure to state a claim, the court supplies
the plaintiff with a' statement of the complaint's
deficiencies. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police
Dept., 839F.2d621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1988); Eldridge
v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). A pro
se litigant will be given leave, to amend his or her
complaint unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the
complaint cannot be cured by amendment.
Karim-Panahi, 83 9 F.2d at 623; Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege facts showing the deprivation of a
right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or
federal law by a person acting under color of state law.
L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1992);
Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir.
pretrial detainee's claim of denial of adequate medical
care arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d
1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018), cert, denied, 139
S.Ct. 794 (2019); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520, 527 n.16 (1979) (Due Process Clause is relied on for
pretrial detainees' claims because a "[s]tate does
not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth
Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal
adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of
law"). The deliberate-indifference standard that applies
to a pretrial detainee's medical claim is an objective
one rather than subjective, as for a convicted prisoner's
claim. In Gordon, the Ninth Circuit recently set
forth the objective standard applicable to pretrial detainees
[T]he elements of a pretrial detainee's medical care
claim against an individual defendant under the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are: (i) the defendant
made an intentional decision with respect to the conditions
under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those conditions
put the plaintiff at substantial risk of serious harm; (iii)
the defendant did not take reasonably 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 (iv) by not taking such measure, the
defendant caused the plaintiff s injuries.
Gordon, 888 F.3d.at 1125, With regard to Plaintiff s
medical treatment at the Jail, Plaintiff presents only
conclusory and vague allegations. Specifically, Plaintiff
does not allege that he suffered any injury, let alone
serious harm, as a result of the Deputies' actions.
Accordingly, the Court cannot determine without further
clarification whether Plaintiff may state a plausible claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment. If Plaintiff amends the
Complaint, he should set forth in a short and plain statement
what each Defendant did or did not do and how Plaintiff was
the Polk County Jail is not a legal entity capable of being
sued under § 1983. Matthews v. Pierce County
Sheriff's Dept, Case No.3:19-cv-05329-KBL-DWC, 2019
WL2141640, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2019). To the extent
Plaintiff asserts a claim against the municipality of Polk
County, to state such a claim he must show the County's
employees or agents acted through an official custom,
pattern, or policy permitting deliberate indifference to, or
violating, the Plaintiffs civil rights, or that the entity
ratified the unlawful conduct. Monell v. New York City
Dept. of Social Services,436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978).
Plaintiff must show (1) deprivation of a constitutional
right; (2) the municipality has a policy; (3) the policy