Goodwin v. Butte County

Goodwin · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · February 26, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-0320 CKD P

Summary

The court grants Michelle Renee Goodwin leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screens her prisoner civil-rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It finds that she states a Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim against Pamela Johansen, but that the remaining claims and defendants are inadequately pleaded. The court gives Goodwin 30 days to elect whether to proceed on that claim or file an amended complaint and denies her motion to compel discovery because discovery has not opened.

Holdings

  1. Goodwin qualified to proceed in forma pauperis because her declaration made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
  2. The complaint stated a claim upon which relief may proceed against Pamela Johansen for denial of medical care in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  3. The complaint failed to state claims against the other defendants and claims identified by the court unless Goodwin amended the pleading to allege specific facts linking each defendant to the claimed deprivation.
  4. Butte County could not be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of its employees; municipal liability requires that a county policy or custom inflict the alleged injury.
  5. To proceed on state-law claims, Goodwin had to comply with the California Tort Claims Act and plead facts demonstrating that compliance in any amended complaint.
  6. The motion to compel discovery was denied because discovery was not yet open; discovery would be set after the appropriate defendants were served.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable § 1983 claim for denial of medical care against Pamela Johansen.
  2. Whether the complaint stated claims against the other named defendants, including Butte County and the Butte County Sheriff.
  3. Whether Goodwin could proceed on state-law claims without pleading compliance with the California Tort Claims Act.
  4. Whether the court should compel discovery before service of process and the opening of discovery.
  5. Whether Goodwin qualified to proceed in forma pauperis.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976)(followed)
  • Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)(followed)
  • Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 694 (1978)(followed)
  • Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Shirk v. Vista Unified School District, 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 (2007)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…