Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01438-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

JDDL 28

MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Tony Cobos, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Warden J.D. Hartley, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-08-1438-JMR

ORDER

 Plaintiff Tony Cobos is confined in the Avenal State Prison in Avenal, California.

In an October 9, 2009 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because Plaintiff had

failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that

cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On November 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (Doc. #9).

Defendants Greenman and Suryadevara must answer the First Amended Complaint.

Defendants Hartley and Bopari are dismissed without prejudice.

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

Case 1:08-cv-01438-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 2 -

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951.

II. First Amended Complaint

In his one-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants

at the Avenal State Prison: Warden J.D. Hartley, Chief Medical Officers Drs. Greenman and

Suryadevara, and Dr. M. Bopari. 

 Plaintiff asserts a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment relating to his medical care. Plaintiff alleges that he has been diagnosed

with “calcific granuloma” in his lower left lung and that he has had consistent throat pain that

radiates to his left eye and upper lung. Plaintiff asserts that when he arrived at Avenal State

Prison, he began having respiratory problems that were diagnosed as pneumonia and treated

with antibiotics, an inhaler, and a “pneumococal vaccine.” Plaintiff asserts that “medical

doctors” at the Avenal State Prison ordered an “open” MRI in 2007, and later opted for an

Case 1:08-cv-01438-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 3 -

ultrasound in 2008, but neither procedure has been performed. Plaintiff claims a throat

culture was taken in 2009, but it was not properly processed and no diagnosis was made.

Plaintiff asserts that he suffers from throat, mouth, tongue, and ear pain; has intermittent

dizziness; and has sustained ear damage that has caused some hearing loss. 

Plaintiff claims that “his custodians have been deliberately indifferent to his pain and

suffering by not providing the very basis diagnostics to determine the source of his

infection,” even though those diagnostic tests have been ordered by medical staff, and have

intentionally delayed providing medical treatment. Plaintiff asserts that he “has consistently

complained to staff about his medical problems and has consistently notified medical . . . of

his medical problems.”

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hartley is aware of Plaintiff’s medical condition

because all exhausted administrative actions are sent to him. Plaintiff contends that

Defendant Greenman is aware of Plaintiff’s medical conditions because he oversees medical

care at the prison, has assumed that Plaintiff is suffering from chronic tonsilitis without

examining Plaintiff, and has not prescribed any treatment for tonsilitis. Plaintiff claims

Defendant Sudyadevara is aware of Plaintiff’s medical needs, has “signed off” on inmate

appeals, but has not provided any treatment. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bopari

examined Plaintiff, ordered tests for Plaintiff’s throat, was aware of Plaintiff’s “throat

nodules” but stated that they were normal, and, on one occasion, stated that “no medicine is

the best medicine.”

In his Request for Relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and

monetary damages.

III. Failure to State a Claim

A. Defendant Hartley

Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of action. Ivey v.

Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further,

Case 1:08-cv-01438-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 4 -

a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the

claim that were not initially pled. Id. 

To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific

injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the

injury and the conduct of that defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377

(1976). There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, and therefore, a defendant’s

position as the supervisor of persons who allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights

does not impose liability. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658, 691-92 (1978); Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . .

§ 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948.

The Court dismisses without prejudice Defendant Hartley because Plaintiff’s claim

against Defendant Hartley is based, at best, on a failure to remedy allegedly unconstitutional

behavior by others. See Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) (defendants

did not commit constitutional violations when they denied administrative grievances, failed

to intervene on plaintiff’s behalf, and failed to remedy allegedly unconstitutional behavior).

B. Defendant Bopari

Not every claim by a prisoner that he has received inadequate medical treatment states

a violation of the Eighth Amendment. To state a § 1983 medical claim, a plaintiff must show

that the defendants acted with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v.

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

(1976)). A plaintiff must show (1) a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that failure

to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain and (2) the defendant’s response was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d

at 1096 (quotations omitted).

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1060 (9th Cir. 2004). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both know

Case 1:08-cv-01438-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/11/10 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 5 -

of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; the official must both be aware of facts

from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and

he must also draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Deliberate indifference in the medical context may be shown by (a) a purposeful act

or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by

the indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may also be shown when

a prison official intentionally denies, delays, or interferes with medical treatment or by the

way prison doctors respond to the prisoner’s medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Jett,

439 F.3d at 1096. 

Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due

care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. “Neither negligence nor gross

negligence will constitute deliberate indifference.” Clement v. California Dep’t of

Corrections, 220 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2002); see also Broughton v. Cutter

Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (mere claims of “indifference,” “negligence,” or

“medical malpractice” do not support a claim under § 1983). “A difference of opinion does

not amount to deliberate indifference to [a plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.” Sanchez v.

Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Defendant Bopari’s statements that Plaintiff’s “throat nodules” were normal, and that

“no medicine is the best medicine,” may have been incorrect or negligent, but do not rise to

the level of deliberate indifference, especially because Defendant Bopari actually examined

Plaintiff and ordered tests to help diagnose Plaintiff’s medical problems. Thus, the Court

dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Bopari.

IV. Claims for Which an Answer Will be Required

Liberally construed, Plaintiff has stated a claim against the chief medical

officers—Defendants Greenman and Suryadevara—based on their failure to treat or

diagnosis Plaintiff’s medical condition and to ensure that prescribed diagnostic tests were

performed. Defendants Greenman and Suryadevara must answer the First Amended

Complaint.

Case 1:08-cv-01438-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/11/10 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 6 -

V. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83-182(f) and 83-183(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include

a motion for other relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in

dismissal of this action.

B. Copies

Plaintiff must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5-133(d)(2). Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further

notice to Plaintiff.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Defendants Hartley and Bopari are dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Defendants Greenman and Suryadevara must answer the First Amended

Complaint.

(3) The Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff a service packet including the First

Amended Complaint (Doc. #9), this Order, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an

instruction sheet, and copies of summons and USM-285 forms for Defendants Greenman and

Suryadevara.

(4) Within 30 days of the date of filing of this Order, Plaintiff must complete and

return to the Clerk of Court the Notice of Submission of Documents. Plaintiff must submit

with the Notice of Submission of Documents: a copy of the First Amended Complaint for

each Defendant, a copy of this Order for each Defendant, a completed summons for each

Defendant, and a completed USM-285 for each Defendant. 

Case 1:08-cv-01438-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/11/10 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JDDL - 7 -

(5) Plaintiff must not attempt service on Defendants and must not request waiver

of service. Once the Clerk of Court has received the Notice of Submission of Documents and

the required documents, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to seek waiver of

service from each Defendant or serve each Defendant.

(6) If Plaintiff fails to return the Notice of Submission of Documents and the

required documents within 30 days of the date of filing of this Order, the Clerk of Court

must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED this 11th day of February, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-01438-GSA Document 10 Filed 02/11/10 Page 7 of 7