Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00534/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00534-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

RICHARD A. LOVE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DR. KIM, et.al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-0534 AWI DLB P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Case 1:05-cv-00534-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Plaintiff names Warden Sullivan, Dr. Kim, Dr. Ismail, Dr. O’Brian, Dr. Capot and 

“supervisory medical staff” at the California Correctional Institution as defendants in this action. 

Plaintiff states that he was seen by Dr. Kim on August 12, 2004 for an infection in his right eye. His

cholesterol was found to be high and Dr. Kim ordered a blood specimen. Plaintiff saw Dr. Ismail on

August 19, 2004, who stated that the lab results revealed that his liver was not able to process fats. 

Plaintiff claims that Dr. Ismail failed to prescribe medication for his right eye or for his liver

problems. Plaintiff saw Dr. Ismail again in September 2004 but nothing was prescribed for his liver

and he received only clear tear drops for his right eye. Plaintiff claims that as a result of the failure

to treat his eye and the failure to refer him to an ophthalmologist, he has suffered a hemorrhaging

blood vessel in his right eye. 

After filing an inmate complaint, plaintiff was seen by Dr. O’Brian on March 4, 2005 who

diagnosed malfunction of the liver. Notwithstanding the diagnosis, plaintiff contends Dr. O’Brian

failed to prescribe medication or a special diet. Plaintiff complains that defendants have placed him

in a very serious condition based on their failure to treatment him and their disregard for policies and

procedures. 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state cognizable claims for relief under section 1983

against the named defendants. 

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 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

Case 1:05-cv-00534-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

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). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not

support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Deliberate indifference can be manifested by prison guards intentionally denying or delaying

access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. However, where a prisoner alleges a delay in receiving medical

treatment, the prisoner must allege that the delay led to further injury. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1060 (9 Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, th

1136 (9 Cir. 1997); Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9 Cir. th th

1985). 

Although neither a physician’s negligence nor a prisoner’s disagreement with a particular

course of treatment states a claim for deliberate indifference, a prison medical staff’s acts or

omissions will constitute deliberate indifference if staff members knew of and disregarded an

excessive risk to an inmate’s health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. Prison officials are

deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs when they “interfere with treatment

once prescribed.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. The Ninth Circuit has found deliberate

Case 1:05-cv-00534-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

indifference where prison officials “deliberately ignore the express orders of a prisoner’s prior

physician for reasons unrelated to the medical needs of the prisoner.” Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d

1062, 1066 (9 Cir. 1992)(reversing summary judgment where prison officials forced prisoner to

th

endure a plane flight that resulted in ear injury, in direct contravention of a treating physician’s

previous orders); Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989)(per

curium)(reversing summary judgment where medical staff knew that pretrial detainee had head

injury, but prescribed contraindicated medications, disregarding evidence of complications to which

they had been specifically alerted by private treating physician); Tolbert v. Eyman, 434 F.2d 625 (9th

Cir. 1970)(finding cognizable claim for deliberate indifference where warden refused to authorize

prisoner’s receipt of medicine that had been previously prescribed by a physician); Cf. McGuckin v.

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1062 (9 Cir. 1992)(where surgery recommended by prisoner’s prior th

physician was severely delayed, court was unable hold doctors liable because prison administrators,

not the doctors, were responsible for scheduling treatment).

 The Courts of other federal Circuits have also found deliberate indifference where prison

officials ignore a previous physician’s treatment plan. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3 Cir. rd

1990)(finding cognizable claim for deliberate indifference where prison officials ignored private

hospital’s treatment orders and refused inmate’s access to prescribed medication); Gill v. Mooney,

824 F.2d 192 (2nd Cir. 1987)(finding cognizable claim where prison officials refused to permit

plaintiff to participate in exercise program prescribed by doctor); Eades v. Thompson, 823 F.2d 1055

(7th Cir. 1987)(finding cognizable claim where prisoner alleged that prison officials made him travel

and carry a heavy box, causing a surgical incision to gape open, in violation of prior medical orders);

Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2nd Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 983, cited with approval

by Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 105 n.10 (finding deliberate indifference where prison staff forced

post-surgical prisoner-patient to walk, ignoring warnings from hospital personnel that inmate should

not be moved); see also Carl T. Drechsler, Annotation, Relief Under Federal Civil Rights Acts to

State Prisoners Complaining of Denial of Medical Care, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 279 (1976)(recognizing that,

on the whole, courts do not condone the practice of prison officials ignoring orders rendered by a

Case 1:05-cv-00534-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/25/06 Page 4 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

prisoner’s previous physician). 

The conduct described in plaintiff’s complaint does not rise to the level of deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need. Plaintiff describes his disagreement with the doctors’

treatment of him, which as discussed, does not state a constitutional claim. It is apparent that

plaintiff has been seen and treated by defendant doctors, he just does not agree with the treatment he

has been given. The constitution protects inmates from deliberate indifference to their serious

medical needs, it does not guarantee or require that a prisoner be given optimal medical treatment. 

Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff has also failed to state cognizable claims against Warden Sullivan and the

“supervisory medical staff” at the California Correctional Institution. Plaintiff has failed to link

these defendants to any specific conduct and, such 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 show a prima facie case of supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege facts indicating

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); Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Leave to Amend

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court

will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies of this complaint. Failure to cure

the deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action without leave to amend. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy,

Case 1:05-cv-00534-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/25/06 Page 5 of 6
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 6

625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. 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). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an 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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; 

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a complaint form; and

3. 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 this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original

and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

this order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with

the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00534-AWI-DLB Document 14 Filed 01/25/06 Page 6 of 6