Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01325-0/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

WILLIAM CLIFTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEAN PIERRE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01325 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff William Clifton (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action on August 21, 2013. Plaintiff names Physician’s Assistant Jean 

Pierre, Chief Nurse Executive S. Follette, Chief of Health Care Appeals L. D. Zamora, and LVN 

Talle as Defendants.1 

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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. 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on September 5, 2013.

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 5
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

§ 1915A(b)(1),(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 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient 

to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles County. The events 

at issue occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California.

Plaintiff alleges upon his arrival at CSATF, his pain medication was abruptly discontinued 

without an examination by a doctor. He appealed the issue, but reprisals were taken against him. 

Plaintiff’s medication for ulcerative colitis/Crohn’s disease was decreased to a minimal dose. As a 

result, he suffered pain that was ignored by doctors. Plaintiff also has major scarring in his colon as 

a result of a ten-month flare-up because doctors were ignoring his medical needs. 

Plaintiff seeks seven million dollars in damages.

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 5
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

C. ANALYSIS

1. Linkage and Rule 8

As explained above, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in 

the alleged deprivation of his rights. Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants 

to the participation in the violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009);

Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of 

Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist 

some causal connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 

(9th Cir. 2013); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 711 F.3d 941, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

Here, Plaintiff names four Defendants, but he does not provide any explanation as to how 

each Defendant was personally involved in the alleged deprivation of medical care. Although 

Plaintiff attaches health care appeals as exhibits, the Court will not attempt to infer Plaintiff’s claims 

from his exhibits. In fact, it does not appear that all Defendants are named in the exhibits.

Accordingly, if Plaintiff amends, he must specifically explain how each Defendant was 

involved in his medical care, and how each deprived him of his rights under the Constitution. The 

Court provides the following standards for Plaintiff’s information should he choose to amend.

2. Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference 

to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat 

[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/06/14 Page 3 of 5
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

pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Deliberate indifference is shown by 

“(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm 

caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The 

requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of 

due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Moreover, a difference of opinion between medical personnel regarding treatment, without 

more, does not amount to deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 

1989). 

3. Appeals

Generally, denying a prisoner’s administrative appeal does not cause or contribute to the 

underlying violation. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). 

However, because prison administrators cannot willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations 

being committed by subordinates, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006), there may be 

limited circumstances in which those involved in reviewing an inmate appeal can be held liable 

under section 1983. In the context of a medical appeal, Plaintiff must first state a viable claim 

against a health care provider before he can state a claim against any individual involved in the 

health care appeals process.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, but he 

should only amend if he believes, in good faith, that he can do so. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 

1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/06/14 Page 4 of 5
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

U.S. at 676-77. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 

F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to 

the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:13-cv-01325-DAD-GSA Document 7 Filed 03/06/14 Page 5 of 5