Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00094/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00094-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES DAVILA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. SMITH,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-00094 LJO GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE 

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

Case 1:15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 6
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

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. 

R.Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the 

plaintiff‟s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” 

Nietze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n. 9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights 

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. 

Nat‟l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(quoting Ivey v.Bd. of Regents, 

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran 

(SATF), brings this action against Dr. Davis Smith, M.D., employed by the CDCR at SATF. 

Plaintiff‟s claim stems from the denial of adequate medical care. Plaintiff‟s allegations stem 

from the treatment of a wrist injury.

Although unclear from the allegations of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff was sent 

out for treatment for his wrist. Attached as exhibits to his complaint are copies of Plaintiff‟s 

medical record.1 Page 5 of Exhibit A, dated June 21, 2013 and authored by Defendant, 

indicates that “I had previously seen Mr. Davila back in August. At that time, I had 

recommended a fusion be done on his wrist. He apparently went down to Tri-City and had it 

 

1 Error! Main Document Only.The court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are 

contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2002); Steckman v. Hart Brewing, 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 6
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

done in January but he is now experiencing some pain in the area of the plate and some 

swelling over the plate.” Defendant noted that the incision was well healed and there was no 

evidence of infection but there was some soft tissue swelling and tenderness overlying the 

plate. Page 6 of Exhibit A, dated October 11, 2013, and authored by Defendant, indicates that 

Plaintiff‟s status was “post wrist fusion which I performed several months ago. He is still 

experiencing some pain in the wrist area and also in his thumb. He has also had a previous 

fusion of his thumb MP joint. Plaintiff was seen two weeks later by Defendant, who noted that 

“at this point there is not much else to do since the plate is in place and the fusion is 

progressing. I would like to just continue to monitor him, however.”

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has had nine surgeries on his right hand over 

the past eight years. He alleges that he is “still in persistent severe pain 24-7 that begins from 

his first metacarpal joint and continues through his index and thumb fingers.” Plaintiff has 

explained his condition “to his doctors,” who have abused their authority in violation of the 

Americans With Disabilities Act. Plaintiff conclusorily alleges that “after having gone through 

nine very painful surgeries to his right hand that unequivocally raised to the level of deliberate 

indifference to his current medical needs and wanton infliction of physical pain and mental 

suffering by the cutting and damage by Doctor M.D. Smith cause the damage and leaving 

broken hard ware [sic] in the body which cause infection.” Plaintiff alleges that he was injured 

due to the incompetency of “the CDCR and SATF‟s medical team that participated and 

performed the nine surgeries on Plaintiff right hand.” 

Eighth Amendment

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 (9th Cir. 2000). 

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

there 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 6
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

court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff‟s] medical 

treatment.” Id. at 1132.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of 

respondeat superior, and there must exist come causal connection between the conduct of each 

named defendant and the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California 

Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 

1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Here, Plaintiff has failed to 

specifically link Defendant Smith to specific conduct indicating that he knew of and 

disregarded a serious medical condition of Plaintiff‟s. Plaintiff cannot allege deficient medical 

conduct in general, and hold Defendant Smith liable. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries have 

resulted from nine surgeries spaced over several years. Plaintiff also charges conduct as to “the 

medical team,” but fails to allege any facts indicating that Dr. Smith was involved in any prior 

treatment.

Plaintiff is also advised that he cannot prevail in a section 1983 action where only the 

quality of treatment is subject to dispute. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989). Mere 

difference of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to appropriate medical care 

does not give rise to a section 1983 claim. Hatton v. Arpaio, 217 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000); 

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). That is the case here. Plaintiff‟s 

central allegation is that he disagrees with the diagnosis of Dr. Smith. Plaintiff has not alleged 

facts indicating that a competent medical professional has diagnosed injury that has resulted 

from the conduct of Dr. Smith. Plaintiff‟s own exhibits indicate that Dr. Smith saw Plaintiff 

regularly, and noted that the fusion, although painful, was healing. Plaintiff has not alleged any 

facts indicating that Dr. Smith refused treatment for his pain, or in any way disregarded 

Plaintiff‟s medical condition.

In order to hold Dr. Smith liable, Plaintiff must allege facts suggesting deliberate 

indifference. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that Dr. Smith was aware of a specific harm 

Case 1:15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 6
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

to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that harm. Plaintiff has failed to do so 

here. The complaint must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to 

file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order 

to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what 

happened. Plaintiff must describe what Dr. Smith did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff.

ADA 

The treatment of lack of treatment for Plaintiff‟s condition does not provided a basis 

upon which to impose liability. Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2005)(medical 

treatment decisions not basis for ADA claims); Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 

1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005)(medical decisions not ordinarily within the scope of the ADA); 

Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996)(“The ADA does not create a remedy for 

medical malpractice.”) . Aside from Defendants‟ medical treatment decisions of which 

Plaintiff complains and which are not an appropriate basis upon which to predicate an ADA 

claim, Plaintiff alleges no facts to show that any named Defendant participated in, or was 

otherwise responsible for, excluding him from numerous activities, programs, and benefits 

otherwise available to him. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim under Title II 

of the ADA.

III. Conclusion

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the 

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he 

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. 

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other 

Case 1:15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 05/27/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

federal rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 

allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell 

Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007)(citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete and in and of itself without reference to 

the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of 

action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 

(9th Cir. 1981)). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint;

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended complaint; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG Document 9 Filed 05/27/15 Page 6 of 6