Pando v. Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System

Background

Henry Pando, an inmate housed at Santa Clara County Jail, filed this action without a lawyer. The court had dismissed the action and entered judgment on February 5, 2024, because Pando had not paid the filing fee or submitted a complete application to proceed without paying the fee.

Pando later filed a letter stating that prison officials would not assist him in preparing and submitting the application and that he lacked funds to pay the filing fee in full. The court treated the letter as both a request to reopen the case and a request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted permission to proceed without paying the fee in a separate order.

Pando then filed another complaint, which the court treated as an amended complaint replacing his original complaint. The court screened that operative complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires preliminary review of a prisoner's complaint seeking relief from a governmental entity or its employees.

Allegations and Screening

Pando alleged that Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System violated the Constitution by failing to respond reasonably or provide adequate treatment for a known serious injury. He also alleged that the failure to treat him correctly caused significant additional harm, unnecessary pain, and difficulty performing basic activities.

The court found that these allegations consisted of labels, conclusions, and a recitation of legal elements. The complaint did not identify Pando's serious medical need, the treatment that was or should have been provided, how treatment was denied, or what policy required the denial.

The court also explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state law. If Pando intended to hold the Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System responsible for constitutional violations, the court said he was asserting a municipal-liability claim against Santa Clara County. The court stated that he would need to allege facts showing that the violation resulted from an officially adopted policy, a longstanding practice or custom, or a decision by a final policymaker. The court further stated that § 1983 does not impose liability solely because a defendant supervised or was otherwise responsible for another person's conduct.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Pando's request to reopen the case. It ordered the Clerk to VACATE the earlier Order of Dismissal and related judgment and to REOPEN the action.

The court DISMISSED the operative complaint with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. It ordered Pando to file a second amended complaint within 28 days addressing the identified deficiencies. The second amended complaint must include the case caption and case number used in the order, the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page, all claims and defendants Pando wishes to pursue, and the requested details for each claim. The court stated that an amended complaint completely replaces the prior complaint and may not incorporate material from earlier complaints by reference.