Terry Sharp v. Deputy Smith, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Terry Sharp leave to file a third amended complaint and vacates its prior findings and recommendations concerning the second amended complaint. On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds potentially colorable Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claims against several individual defendants and a First Amendment communication claim against Doe defendants, while recommending dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against Sacramento County for insufficiently pleaded municipal liability. The order also addresses retaliation claims and provides a procedure for identifying the Doe defendants.

Holdings

1. Leave to file the third amended complaint was granted because plaintiff had not previously been given an opportunity to amend his Monell claims against Sacramento County and the proposed amendment omitted or attempted to cure previously identified defects.
2. The complaint stated potentially colorable Fourteenth Amendment inadequate-medical-care claims against Kim Do, Gomez, Hailey-Currey, Masood, Mossett, Akudinobi, Glaser, Reema, Gladys, Dhaliwal, Gil, Her, and Cervantes based on the specific medical treatment and accommodation allegations described in the complaint.
3. The complaint did not state potentially colorable Monell claims against Sacramento County because it lacked specific facts identifying a policy, custom, failure to train, supervise, discipline, or hire, and did not link the County to the alleged violations.
4. The complaint stated a potentially colorable First Amendment claim against Doe defendants 1 through 4 based on allegedly disabling outgoing telephone calls and denying communication outside the prison.
5. The complaint failed to state a potentially colorable retaliation claim against Cervetti, Smith, Barrera, Yang, and Mora because the alleged referral for medical evaluation advanced a legitimate penological goal.
6. The complaint stated a potentially colorable retaliation claim against Smith, Mazzanti, and Melissa based on an allegedly retaliatory transfer to cell 37 after Sharp filed grievances, but did not link Sacramento County to the alleged deprivation.
7. The complaint stated a potentially colorable Fourteenth Amendment claim against Doe defendants 5 and 6 for allegedly holding Sharp in solitary confinement for an additional twenty-four hours after he notified them that he should be released, but failed to state such a claim against Her, Cervantes, or Sacramento County.
8. All claims against Tracy, RN, were recommended for dismissal because the third amended complaint did not link Tracy to any alleged deprivation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sharp should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a third amended complaint.
2. Whether the third amended complaint stated potentially colorable Fourteenth Amendment claims for inadequate medical care by individual defendants.
3. Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded municipal liability against Sacramento County under Monell.
4. Whether the complaint stated a potentially colorable First Amendment claim concerning denial of telephone communication.
5. Whether the complaint stated potentially colorable First Amendment retaliation claims.
6. Whether the complaint stated a potentially colorable Fourteenth Amendment claim for excessive solitary confinement.
7. Whether claims against an unlinked defendant, Tracy, RN, should be dismissed.

Disposition

other