Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00740-3/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

27

28 Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed suit. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE A. RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00740-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff George A. Ramirez (“plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

June 13, 2006. 

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 1

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 paid, the court shall 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 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

2

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. Swierkiewicz 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. A court may dismiss a complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether

the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of

the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey,

353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.”

Neitze 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)).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff is a former inmate who was housed at Wasco State Prison (WSP) at the time of the

events at issue in this action. The defendants named in this action are Dr. Pham at WSP, the Warden

of WSP, the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and Dr. Hau

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 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

Plaintiff also states he is seeking unspecified injunctive relief. However, when an inmate seeks injunctive 2

or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he

is no longer subjected to those conditions. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore,

948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. Therefore, this action shall proceed as one for

damages only.

3

Hsien Chang with Mercy Hospital. Plaintiff is seeking money damages. The claims in this action 2

arise from the medical treatment plaintiff was provided while at WSP.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal

Constitution and laws.” Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)

(internal quotations omitted.) “To the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal Constitution,

Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id. 

Section 1983 plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “‘A

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of [§] 1983,

if [that person] does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform

an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint

is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he ‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by

some kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also be setting in motion a series

of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the

constitutional injury.’” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). 

Plaintiff’s claims involve hismedical care and therefore fall within the purview of the Eighth

Amendment. To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 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

4

prison conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v.

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise

to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner

of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with

deliberate indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)

(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official

does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v.Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate

indifference may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with

medical treatment,” or in the manner “in which prison physicians provide medical care.” McGuckin

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

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in

receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the prisoner to

make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060

(citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff alleges that he was received at the WSP Reception Center on July 17, 2004. In

August of 2004, plaintiff began having problems urinating. It took him several minutes to urinate

and it was painful. Plaintiff saw Dr. Pham on August 30, 2004, and reported the problem. Dr. Pham

noted on plaintiff’s chart that he was referring plaintiff to a urologist and prescribed plaintiff his

regular blood pressure medication. Plaintiff again saw Dr. Pham on October 13, 2004, and Dr. Pham

noted plaintiff’s urethral secretion problems in the chart.

On October 14, 2004, plaintiff was seen by Dr. Newton for a mental health examination. Dr.

Newton initiated the paperwork to get plaintiff taken to the hospital immediately when plaintiff

reported his problems with urination. Dr. Lee examined plaintiff and determined that surgery was

not necessary. Dr. Lee told plaintiff to drink lots of water and reported his recommendations to Dr.

Pham, who prescribed an ointment for plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges the ointment did not alleviate the

problem and the pain during urination became unbearable. Plaintiff alleges he continued to inform

///

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 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

5

the nurse who administered his blood pressure medication and again sought out Dr. Newton, who

informed medical staff. Plaintiff alleges he was then scheduled for surgery.

On December 22, 2004, plaintiff was taken to MercyHospital where surgery was performed

by Dr. Chang. Plaintiff alleges that upon his return to prison, Dr. Pham prescribed post-operative

medications but no pain medication. Plaintiff alleges that the pain during urination was unbearable

and he requested to see a doctor per the discharge instructions.

Plaintiff alleges that while waiting to see a doctor, he was transferred to California State

Prison-Los Angeles County. Upon arrival, plaintiff’s medication was confiscated. Two weeks later,

plaintiff’s blood pressure medication was re-prescribed but his medication for his urinary problem

was not. Plaintiff alleges that he was seen by doctors numerous times but they ignored his

complaints regarding his urinary problems.

Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to appeal the problem but his appeal was rejected due to

time constraints. Plaintiff alleges that doctors at CSP-LAC kept telling him the urinary issue was

not CSP-LAC’s problem. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to Avenal State Prison, where he

alleges he continued to suffer intense pain while urinating and his urine was sometimes purplish in

color, possible from blood.

Plaintiff is attempting to impose liability under section 1983 against Drs. Pham and Chang,

the WSP Warden, and the CDCR Director. In order to state a claim under section 1983, plaintiff

must allege facts sufficient to support a claim that each named defendant “[knew] of and

disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health . . . .” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Plaintiff has

sufficiently alleged that he suffered from a serious medical problem and that he suffered prolonged

pain as a result of the problem. However, plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that Drs. Pham

and Chang acted with deliberate indifference to the problem. Disagreement with the course of

treatment prescribed by Dr. Pham does not support a claim for relief under section 1983. Franklin

v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). Dr. Chang performed the surgery at the hospital

and plaintiff alleges that the surgeryobviously did not work. This is an insufficient basis upon which

to impose liability for negligence, let alone for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against either Dr. Pham or Dr. Chang. 

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 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

6

Finally, there are no allegations relating to the Warden or the Director. Under section 1983,

liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions of their employees under a

theory of respondeat superior. When the named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal

link between the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See

Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.

1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief under section 1983 for

supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the defendant either: personally

participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to

act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is

a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’”

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts must

be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Unit,

507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). Because there are no allegations set forth concerning either defendant,

plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Warden or the Director.

C. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint 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.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint 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). 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). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 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

7

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.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00740-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 02/27/07 Page 7 of 7