Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06046/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06046-1/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNIE SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC GOLDING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06046-HSG 

ORDER SCREENING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Los Angeles County, filed this pro se civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that officials at Pelican Bay State Prison, 

where he was previously housed, violated his constitutional rights. His amended complaint (Dkt. 

No. 12) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

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

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 13 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 4
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 California

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

B. Initial Complaint

On November 27, 2019, the Court screened the initial complaint and found that its 

allegation that Dr. Kumar and RN Golding failed to provide appropriate medical treatment for 

plaintiff’s fractured thumb stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim and a cognizable statelaw claim for violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6 against Dr. Kumar and RN Golding. The 

Court dismissed the federal due process claim with prejudice, and dismissed with leave to amend 

the equal protection claim and the claims against Warden Robertson. The Court ordered service 

on Dr. Kumar and RN Golding. See Dkt. No. 7. 

C. Amended Complaint

The amended complaint again names Dr. Kumar, RN Golding, and Warden Robertson as 

defendants. The amended complaint’s factual allegations are the same as the factual allegations in 

the initial complaint. The amended complaint’s allegation that Dr. Kumar and RN Golding failed 

to provide appropriate medical treatment for plaintiff’s fractured thumb again states a cognizable 

Eighth Amendment claim and a cognizable state-law claim for violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 

845.6 against Dr. Kumar and RN Golding (Claims I and II). See Dkt. No. 12 (“Am Compl.”).

The amended complaint’s third claim alleges that defendants violated the equal protection 

clause when Dr. Kumar and RN Golding failed to provide appropriate medical treatment and when 

Warden Robertson failed to properly supervise Dr. Kumar and RN Golding because these actions 

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 13 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 4
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 California

denied plaintiff “the same medical attention that is required for other prisoners with similar 

injuries as plaintiff.” Am. Compl. at 10. Plaintiff has failed to state an equal protection claim. As 

explained in the Court’s November 27, 2019 order screening the initial complaint, when a prisoner 

challenges his treatment with regard to other prisoners, a prisoner must allege that his treatment is 

invidiously dissimilar to that received by other inmates. More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 271-72 

(8th Cir. 1993) (absent evidence of invidious discrimination, federal courts should defer to 

judgment of prison officials). A plaintiff can establish an equal protection “class of one” claim by 

demonstrating that the state actor (1) intentionally (2) treated him differently than other similarly 

situated persons, (3) without a rational basis. Gerhart v. Lake County Montana, 637 F.3d 1013, 

1020 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per 

curiam)). The mere fact that plaintiff was treated differently from other similarly situated inmates 

does not state an equal protection claim. The differential treatment must be intentional and 

invidious. The Court will DISMISS the equal protection claim but grant plaintiff one more 

opportunity to amend this claim, if he believes that he can truthfully allege an equal protection 

claim. Plaintiff is reminded that “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is 

insufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Plaintiff has also failed to state cognizable claims against Warden Robertson. Plaintiff’s 

conclusory allegation that Warden Robertson failed to supervise Dr. Kumar and RN Golding is 

insufficient to state a cognizable claim for Section 1983 liability. The Court will grant plaintiff 

one more opportunity to allege claims against Warden Robertson, if he believes that he can 

truthfully do so. Plaintiff must provide more than conclusory statements of liability; he must 

provide facts from which it can be reasonably inferred that Warden Robertson is liable pursuant to 

Section 1983 for the alleged constitutional violations committed by his subordinates. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders as follows. 

1. The amended complaint’s allegation that Dr. Kumar and RN Golding failed to 

provide appropriate medical treatment for plaintiff’s fractured thumb states a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim and state-law claim for violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6 against Dr. Kumar 

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 13 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 4
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 California

and RN Golding. The Court DISMISSES with leave to amend the equal protection claim and the 

claims against Warden Robertson. Plaintiff may either (1) file a second amended complaint to 

address the deficiencies identified above or (2) proceed solely on the claims found cognizable 

above.

2. If plaintiff proceeds solely on the claims found cognizable above, the briefing

schedule remains unchanged because the factual allegations in the amended complaint are the 

same as those in the initial complaint.

3. If plaintiff wishes to file a second amended complaint, he must do so within

twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order. The second amended complaint must include the 

caption and civil case number used in this order, Case No. C 19-06046 HSG (PR) and the words 

“SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, 

Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Because an 

amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in his 

second amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present, including the ones already found 

cognizable above, and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaints by 

reference. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the

second amended complaint. Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this 

order in the time provided will result in the amended complaint (Dkt. No. 12) remaining the 

operative complaint, and this action proceeding solely on the claims found cognizable above. The 

Clerk shall include two copies of a blank complaint form with a copy of this order to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/21/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 13 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 4