Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06453/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06453-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANA McMASTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6453 AWI LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION (Doc.1) 

 Dana McMaster (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint

on October 26, 2004, alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to medical care. 

Plaintiff names Warden Yates, Health Care Manager Bendon, Drs. Nicholes, Ortiz, Salar, and

Thomas, Nurses Sedwick and Roberts, Medical Technical Assistants Hoyt, Lunn and Erickson,

Technician Combs, Correctional Officer Villarreal and appeals Coordinator Sylvester as

Defendants. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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). 

Case 1:04-cv-06453-FRZ Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 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

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

On January 2, 2004, Plaintiff suffered an injury to his ankle which he assumed to be

minor. (Complaint at 1.) However, on January 3, 2004, he experienced pain and swelling in his

ankle and had his cellmate assist him to the facility medical clinic. On January 4, 2004, Plaintiff

was seen by Dr. Nicholes who prescribed Motrin, authorized crutches, scheduled an x-ray and

directed Plaintiff to “lay in” for 1 day. (Complaint at 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff states that on January

5, 2004, he again saw Dr. Nicholes for a follow-up exam, however, he states at this time Dr.

Nicholes ignored his concerns that he had difficulty sleeping, his ankle was still swollen and that

use of the crutches was difficult. (Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff states further that he was seen again

on January 6, 2004, by Defendant Thomas, and on January 7, 2004, by Dr. Nicholes who

prescribed him Vicodin, continued the lay in and use of crutches and instructed him to keep his

ankle elevated. (Complaint at 3; Exh. C-2.) 

Plaintiff was seen again on March 5, 2004, by Defendant Salazar, another Doctor, who

noted in his medical file that Plaintiff was constipated, was losing weight, hungry all the time and

his ankle was still swollen. (Complaint at 4.) Dr. Salazar prescribed Motrin and Ordered “labs.” 

(Exh. C, D-1, Complaint.) Plaintiff complains that Dr. Salazar violated his Eighth Amendment

Case 1:04-cv-06453-FRZ Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 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

3

rights because he failed to refer him to someone with “expertise.” 

On March 23, Defendants C/O Villarreal and Technician Combs to issued Plaintiff a

priority pass to obtain an x-ray. (Complaint at 5, Exh. E.) Defendant Thomas examined the xrays and issued a radiology report to Dr. Salazar. Plaintiff contends Dr. Thomas’s assessment

immediately warranted an appointment with “medical experts qualified to further assess and treat

his obvious deterioration of his left ankle.” (Complaint at 5.) 

Plaintiff was again issued a priority pass for a Dr. Appointment on April 1, 2004, where

he was examined by Defendant Nicholes. Plaintiff contends that no entry was made into his

medical records. Plaintiff does not allege that he was not seen but that an entry by the attending

physician is missing. (Complaint at 6.) Plaintiff was then later referred to the emergency room

by Defendant Sedwick to meet with Dr. Nicholes. Id. Plaintiff complains that Dr. Nicholes

intentionally delayed in violation of his federal constitutional right of access to medical care. 

On April 5, 2004, Defendant Nicholes met with Plaintiff to inform him that the radiology

report issued on March 24, 2004, could not be found and that he would have to retrieve the xrays. (Complaint at 7.) Plaintiff argues that this evidences Dr. Nicholes intentional delay

concerning Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff states, however, that after Dr. Nicholes

retrieved the x-rays confirming Plaintiff’s injury but that he relied on old information in violation

of his rights. Id. 

On April 6, 2004, Defendant R.N. Roberts issued an order that Plaintiff be seen by

Defendant Nicholes on April 7, 2004, for the purpose of placing a case on Plaintiff’s. Defendant

Roberts also ordered one pair of crutches. Plaintiff states that this is totally opposite of Dr.

Nicholes assessment. 

Plaintiff states that on April 7, 2004, after he notified Defendants Yates, Bendon, Sacks,

Nicholes, Sedwick, Lunn, Erickson, Thomas, Ortiz, Salazar, Villarreal, Combs, Hoyt, and

Roberts of facts or sets of facts regarding his serious injury “to discontinue the joined decision by

his co-defendants to willfully, knowingly, and maliciously enter into plaintiff’s medical records

and files fabucated[sic] and false medical reports, information and data, aimed and or directed at

causing unnecessary delay and unilateral denial of plaintiff’s established state and federal

Case 1:04-cv-06453-FRZ Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 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

constitutional right of access to . . .adequate medical care.” (Complaint at 8.) 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

1. Linkage Requirement

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. The statute 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). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights. Here, Plaintiff fails to link a majority of the Defendants to an act or omission

giving rise to an constitutional violation. However, even assuming that were the case, as noted

below, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. 

2. Medical Care

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference”

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than mere negligence, but less than

Case 1:04-cv-06453-FRZ Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 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

conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 

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.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or

treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v.

County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim for relief under Section 1983 for

violation of the Eighth Amendment. “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and

prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a s 1983 claim.” Franklin v.

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, plaintiff

“must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the

circumstances . . . and . . . that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk

to plaintiff’s health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal citations

omitted). 

Here, however, Plaintiff presents no facts demonstrating that any of the named

Defendants knew of and disregarded as serious risk to his medical health. Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. at 837. Plaintiff concedes that he time he presented to the medical clinic he was

examined by medical personnel, be they Doctors, MTA’s or nurses. There is no allegation that

Case 1:04-cv-06453-FRZ Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 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

he was ever denied treatment. Plaintiff’s main contention is that his injury was serious and thus,

he should have been referred to an “expert” qualified to treat him. This contention, however,

indicates a disagreement with the course of treatment chosen by the attending physicians and is

an insufficient basis on which to impose liability on the Defendants. 

3. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff names Warden Yates as a Defendant. The Court assumes by this that Plaintiff is

attempting to hold Defendant Yates liable as a supervisory. 

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under Section 1983 for the actions of their

employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between him 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 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege

some facts that would support a claim that supervisory Defendants 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 Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief based on a violation of his Eighth

Amendment rights, there is no underlying constitutional violation on which to base a claim of

supervisory liability. Further, even had Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a cognizable claim against

any of the Defendants, Plaintiff fails to link Defendant Yates to any act or omission and thus,

fails to state sufficient facts on which to base a claim of supervisory liability. D. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

Case 1:04-cv-06453-FRZ Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 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

under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable

of being cured by amendment, and therefore leave to amend should not be granted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the

Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with a copy

of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06453-FRZ Document 8 Filed 03/15/06 Page 7 of 7