Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04752/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04752-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GRANDE GRAJEDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden;

MICHAEL SAYRE, M.D.; SUE

RISENHOOVER, F.N.P.; JOHN

KRAVITZ, CCII (A); MAUREEN

McLEAN, F.N.P.; J. FLOWERS, R.N.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4752 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, has filed a complaint alleging

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a

supplemental state law claim for medical malpractice. He has paid the filing fee. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or 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. Id. at

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." "Specific facts are not necessary;

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff was in a vehicle accident while in custody. At that time he was housed at

Corcoran State Prison. He suffered injuries to his face and hip. Metal plates were inserted

into his face at a hospital to deal with the facial injuries, but his hip injuries were left to be

treated by prison doctors. His hip injury was not treated, however. He subsequently was

transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison, which is in this district; the claims in the complaint

relate only to his care after he arrived at Pelican Bay.

At Pelican Bay he says defendants Sayre and Risenhoover told him that they had no

medical reports from Corcoran or the hospital regarding the accident and his care. About

two and a half years after he arrived at Pelican Bay, plaintiff gave defendant Flowers and

“medical staff” copies of his medical records, since they claimed not to be able to obtain

them. He contends that he nevertheless continues to be denied “proper medical care” and

suffers severe chronic pain. He says Risenhoover told him that the hip was healed and

that nothing could be done and that Sayre told him that there was nothing wrong with him. 

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff does not mention defendants Horel, Kravitz, or McLean in his statement of

claim, and so has not stated a claim against them. The complaint therefore must be

dismissed with leave to amend. 

As noted above, plaintiff’s task in his complaint is to allege "enough facts to state a

claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1986-87. That applies

not only to the defendants whom he did not mention but also to those he did, Sayre, 

Risenhoover, and Flowers. 

As to Flowers, an R.N., he alleges only that he gave Flowers copies of his medical

records. He does not allege what Flowers did which would amount to deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need. As to Sayre, a doctor, he alleges that Sayre told

him there were no medical reports from the accident and treatment, something which would

not in itself be deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. He also alleges that Sayre

told him that there was nothing wrong with him, despite his severe chronic pain, and

alleges that Sayre told him he would not receive treatment because of his “short- corridor

SHU” housing assignment, something which does not seem relevant to his medical

condition. This is sufficient to require a response, were it not for the need to amend as to

the other defendants. 

As to Risenhoover, the allegation that she told him they did not have his records is

no more sufficient to state a claim against her than it was against Sayre, and the allegation

that she told him that his hip was healed and nothing more could be done is insufficient in

the absence of an allegation that there was in fact a need for further medical treatment. 

The claim against Risenhoover will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within

thirty days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the

first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint,

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present, including those against Dr.

Sayre recognized above. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He

may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend

within the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\GRAJEDA4752.DWL.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOTICE -- WARNING

(SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case dismissed. A

motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if

granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment.

Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact--that

is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who

asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by

declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says.

Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or

authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the

defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for

trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may

be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will

be no trial.

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOTICE -- WARNING 

(EXHAUSTION)

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are seeking

to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that you did

exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of declarations (statements

signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that is, documents accompanied by a

declaration showing where they came from and why they are authentic, or other sworn papers, such

as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed and there

will be no trial.

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 Page 6 of 6