Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01781/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01781-1/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVYON C. HARBOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOCTOR FRAZE et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1781 WBS DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 

proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 1 of 8
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

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(2).

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 

U.S. at 555. 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).

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 2 of 8
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

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

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 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 Servs., 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 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 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). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

In his complaint, plaintiff has identified as defendants Dr. Fraze, Dr. Borges, Dr. Dhillon, 

P. Sahota, J. Copley, J. Lewis, and L. Zamora. Therein plaintiff asserts two claims against the 

defendants for denial of adequate medical care. In his first claim, plaintiff alleges that in 2013, 

fire marshals ordered Folsom State Prison to close a building due to potential fire hazards and that 

prison staff assigned the inmates living in the building to other cells throughout the prison. 

According to plaintiff, at that time prison staff ignored his medical chronos and improperly 

housed him in a cell that required him to climb stairs. While plaintiff transported his property up 

the stairs, plaintiff heard his knee pop, and he felt an instant pain rush through his leg. Plaintiff 

had undergone major knee surgery the year before and had not fully recovered. Plaintiff alleges 

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 3 of 8
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

that he filed an inmate appeal and asked to see a specialist and to have an MRI done on his knee. 

Defendants Dhillon, Copley, Lewis, and Zamora denied his inmate appeal. Plaintiff subsequently 

transferred to California Medical Facility where a doctor ordered an MRI for him and prescribed 

him pain medication. The MRI revealed that plaintiff had a tear in his lateral meniscus. Plaintiff 

underwent surgery for the tear on June 17, 2014. (Compl. Attach. Claim One 1-3.) 

In his second claim, plaintiff alleges that as early as 2008, prison doctors at Centinela 

State Prison prescribed him Ibuprofen for headaches and back pain. Plaintiff complained to 

defendant Fraze that he had stomach and digestive problems, and defendant Fraze ordered blood 

tests. According to plaintiff, twelve of his test results were out of range, but defendant Fraze 

ignored them. Subsequently, plaintiff alleges that he had two additional blood draws and learned 

that he suffered from chronic renal insufficiency. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Borges at 

Folsom State Prison told him that it stemmed from his use of NSAID pain medication and made a 

note in plaintiff’s medical file to no longer prescribe plaintiff such medication. Plaintiff asked to 

see a kidney specialist, and defendant Borges said he would allow him access to a see a specialist 

but wanted to run an additional test to see if plaintiff had Lupus. The test result was negative, but 

defendant Borges has not allowed plaintiff to see a specialist. Plaintiff alleges filed an inmate 

appeal concerning lack of treatment for his renal insufficiency. Defendants Dhillon, Sahota, 

Copley, Lewis, and Zamora denied his appeals. Plaintiff notes that he still has not seen a kidney 

specialist to determine how much damage has been done to his kidneys. (Compl. Attach. Claim 

Two 1-5.)

DISCUSSION

The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint are so vague and conclusory that the court is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. 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 to 

the defendants and must allege facts that support 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 his 

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 4 of 8
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

claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. However, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must allege facts demonstrating how 

the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or 

statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). In addition, plaintiff must 

allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s 

rights. 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). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 

violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from a number of deficiencies. First, to the extent that 

plaintiff wishes to raise a claim against defendants Dhillon, Sahota, Copley, Lewis, and Zamora 

for the way they have (or have not) processed his inmate appeals, he fails to state a cognizable 

claim for relief. Prison officials are not required under federal law to process inmate grievances 

in a specific way or to respond to them in a favorable manner. Even if the defendants delayed, 

denied, or erroneously screened out plaintiff’s inmate grievances, they have not deprived him of a 

federal constitutional right. This is because it is well established that “inmates lack a separate 

constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). See also, 

e.g., Wright v. Shannon, No. CIV F-05-1485 LJO YNP PC, 2010 WL 445203 at *5 (E.D. Cal. 

Feb. 2, 2010) (plaintiff’s allegations that prison officials denied or ignored his inmate appeals 

failed to state a cognizable claim under the First Amendment); Walker v. Vazquez, No. CIV F09-0931 YNP PC, 2009 WL 5088788 at *6-7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2009) (plaintiff’s allegations 

that prison officials failed to timely process his inmate appeals failed to a state cognizable under 

the Fourteenth Amendment); Towner v. Knowles, No. CIV S-08-2833 LKK EFB P, 2009 WL 

4281999 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009) (plaintiff’s allegations that prison officials screened out 

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 5 of 8
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

his inmate appeals without any basis failed to indicate a deprivation of federal rights); Williams v. 

Cate, No. F-09-0468 OWW YNP PC, 2009 WL 3789597 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) 

(“Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in the vindication of his administrative claims.”). In 

any amended complaint plaintiff elects to file, he should not include any claims concerning 

defendants’ purported failure to process or respond to his inmate appeals and staff complaints. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim against the named 

defendants for their alleged inadequate treatment of his medical needs. The Supreme Court has 

held that inadequate medical care did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment cognizable 

under § 1983 unless the mistreatment rose to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious 

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

may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical 

treatment, or may be shown by the way in which prison officials provide medical care. 

Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988). 

In any amended complaint that plaintiff elects to file, he will need to allege in specific 

terms how any named defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to his serious medical needs in 

either denying or providing inadequate medical care to him. Deliberate indifference is “a state of 

mind more blameworthy than negligence” and “requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due care for 

the prisoner’s interests or safety.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). 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 Lab., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 

429 U.S. at 105-06). Likewise, a mere disagreement between plaintiff and defendants as to how 

defendants provided him with medical care fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. See Toguchi 

v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 

332 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 6 of 8
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

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.

OTHER MATTERS

On August 22, 2014, the court received plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On the same day, the court received plaintiff’s 

timely-filed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s 

motion for an extension of time as unnecessary.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 7) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an 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 to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; failure to file an amended 

complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 7 of 8
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

8

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a civil 

rights action.

6. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 6) is denied as unnecessary.

Dated: October 1, 2014

DAD:9

harb1781.14a

Case 2:14-cv-01781-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 10/02/14 Page 8 of 8