Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02405/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02405-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IAN ANTHONY BULANDR,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-2405-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this 

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 

His complaint is now before the Court for initial screening 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

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

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Case 3:16-cv-02405-TEH Document 9 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II 

Plaintiff states that he has received inadequate medical 

care. 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin 

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other 

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate 

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a 

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury 

or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The 

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would 

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence 

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's 

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial 

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" 

need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

Case 3:16-cv-02405-TEH Document 9 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 5
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she 

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm 

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to 

abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The 

prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison 

official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then 

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how 

severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 

(9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisonerpatient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does 

not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Plaintiff states that he has been denied medical care for 

his chronic psoriasis and eczema. Plaintiff identifies eight 

Defendants but in the body of the complaint only describes the 

actions of one Defendant. He states that Nurse Risenhoover 

denied treatment by refusing creams and ointments that has been 

working well for plaintiff. As a result he suffers from 

bleeding, scabbing, and pain. Liberally construed this is 

sufficient to state a claim against Risenhoover. 

However, Plaintiff has failed to present any allegations 

against the remaining Defendants. The complaint will be 

dismissed with leave to amend to identify the specific actions of 

the other Defendants and describe how they violated Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights. Simply attaching exhibits is 

insufficient. Failure to amend will result in this case 

Case 3:16-cv-02405-TEH Document 9 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

proceeding solely against Risenhoover. If plaintiff does file an 

amended complaint he must include the allegations against 

Risenhoover. 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all 

related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to 

proceed against in this action. The pleading must be simple, 

concise and direct and must state clearly and succinctly how each 

and every Defendant is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s 

federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. The 

pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in 

this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on 

the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must file all of 

his claims in one complaint and not present them piecemeal to the 

Court in various letters and other documents. Failure to file a 

proper First Amended Complaint within twenty-eight days of this 

order will result in the dismissal of all Defendants except 

Risenhoover. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

Case 3:16-cv-02405-TEH Document 9 Filed 06/16/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled."). 

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 6/15/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Redwine3109.dwlta.docx 

Case 3:16-cv-02405-TEH Document 9 Filed 06/16/16 Page 5 of 5