Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00407/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00407-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0407 AWI WMW PC

vs. ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

 AMENDED COMMPLAINT 

 WITH LEAVE TO FILE A

 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 

(THIRTY DAY DEADLINE)

P. ROBERTS,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding prose in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the second amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Corcoran State Prison,

brings this civil rights action against defendant P. Roberts, a Nurse employed by the CDCR at

Corcoran State Prison. 

Plaintiff’s brings claims of deliberate indifference and retaliation against Defendant

Roberts. Regarding the deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff alleges that beginning on

February 28, 2006, he submitted written requests for medical care to Defendant Roberts. 

Plaintiff alleges that the requests were ignored. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Roberts did not

Case 1:06-cv-00407-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 5
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

. Plata is a class action that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern 1

District of California. The failure of staff to comply with an injunction issued by the court in Plata

is not grounds for relief in this case. To the extent that plaintiff wishes to seek assistance that he

believes is due pursuant to the Plata injunction, plaintiff “must pursue his request via the consent

decree or through class counsel.” Crayton v. Terhune, No. C 98-4386 CRB(PR), 2002 WL

31093590, *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2002). 

2

respond to the requests on the ground that Plaintiff was scheduled for an appointment on March

23, 2006. In his requests, Plaintiff indicated that he was in “excruciating pain” and unable to

sleep due to a herniated disc. Plaintiff submitted his requests through various individuals. 

Plaintiff also alleges that his cellmate informed Defendant Roberts of Plaintiff’s requests. 

On March 15, 2006, Defendant Roberts approached Plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff explained to

Defendant Roberts that he had submitted numerous requests to be seen, and that Defendant

Roberts was obligated to conduct a face to face interview with Plaintiff pursuant to the “Plata

Policy Settlement.” Roberts advised Plaintiff that she was not authorized to prescribe pain 1

medication, and that Plaintiff was scheduled for an appointment on March 23 . Defendant rd

Roberts then left the housing area.

On March 16, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by a nurse practitioner, who prescribed

medication. On March 23, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Michael Reynolds, M.D. , who prescribed

medication to control Plaintiff’s allergies. On March 30, 2006, Plaintiff was transported to an

outside hospital, where his spinal surgery was performed. 

As to his retaliation claim, Plaintiff alleges that Roberts advised Correctional Office

Womack to tell Plaintiff to stop submitting his requests, because he would be seen on March

23 .

rd

Deliberate Indifference

Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide medical care

to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9 Cir. 2000). “In th

order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, there

Case 1:06-cv-00407-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 06/25/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to evaluating whether

medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” First, a court must

examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second, a court must

determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id.

at 1132.

Here, Plaintiff alleges, that Defendant Roberts denied his request on the ground that she

could not authorize the treatment that he sought, and that he was scheduled for an appointment. 

Plaintiff alleges that the day after Roberts informed him of her ground for not seeing him, he was

treated and prescribed pain medication. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating that

Roberts’s conduct caused him injury. As noted above, non-compliance with another court

decision is not a ground for relief in this case.

Retaliation

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic

elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s

exercise of his first amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate

correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005). See also Sorrano’s

Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9 Cir. 1989)(explaining that a plaintiff must plead th

facts which suggest “that the protected conduct was a ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor in the

defendant’s decision”) (citation ommitted).

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts indicating that his exercise of his first amendment

rights were actually chilled. The facts alleged indicate that Roberts told Womack to advise

Plaintiff that the ground for her refusal was that Plaintiff was scheduled for an appointment. 

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Roberts’ decision was based upon Plaintiff’s protected

Case 1:06-cv-00407-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 06/25/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

activitity is unsubstantiated by factual allegation.

The court finds the allegations in Plaintiff's second amended complaint to be conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:06-cv-00407-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 06/25/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

third amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Third Amended Complaint." Failure to

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00407-AWI-GSA Document 27 Filed 06/25/08 Page 5 of 5