Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03109/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03109-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMOND ALLEN REDWINE,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M.E. SPEARMAN, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-3109-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, 

filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 

Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a 

separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for 

initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

I 

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 

1 While filed as a habeas action, Plaintiff seeks relief regarding 

the conditions of his confinement. 

Case 3:15-cv-03109-TEH Document 4 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 5
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 Californi

a

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1990). 

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 violation was committed by a person acting under 

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

II 

Plaintiff states that he has been denied medical treatment 

and is in severe pain. 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin 

v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other 

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate 

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a 

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury 

or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The 

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would 

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence 

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's 

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial 

Case 3:15-cv-03109-TEH Document 4 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 5
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 Californi

a

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" 

need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she 

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm 

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to 

abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The 

prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison 

official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then 

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how 

severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 

(9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisonerpatient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does 

not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Plaintiff states that he has been denied treatment for his 

severe medical epicondylitis2 and as a result is in severe pain. 

He requested to see a specialist to discuss treatment of his 

elbow pain, but the request was denied. Plaintiff provides no 

more information and does not identify the actions of any 

specific defendant, but instead attaches approximately 170 pages 

of exhibits. The only named Defendant is the warden of the 

facility. 

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff 

 

2 Epicondylitis, also known as tennis elbow, is inflammation in the 

forearm muscles resulting from repetitive strain. See Brown v. 

Colvin, 2015 WL 3823938, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2015).

Case 3:15-cv-03109-TEH Document 4 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 5
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 Californi

a

must identify specific defendants and describe how they were 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff 

must describe what requests were denied, who denied the requests, 

what medical care was provided, and how the provided medical care 

was inadequate and violated the Eighth Amendment. Simply 

attaching exhibits is insufficient. 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. The Clerk shall reclassify this action as a civil rights 

action. 

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all 

related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to 

proceed against in this action. The pleading must be simple, 

concise and direct and must state clearly and succinctly how each 

and every Defendant is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s 

federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. The 

pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in 

this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on 

the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must file all of 

his claims in one complaint and not present them piecemeal to the 

Court in various letters and other documents. Failure to file a 

proper First Amended Complaint within twenty-eight days of this 

order will result in the dismissal of this action without 

prejudice. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Case 3:15-cv-03109-TEH Document 4 Filed 07/24/15 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled."). 

4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. 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: 07/23/2015 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Redwine3109.dwlta.docx 

Case 3:15-cv-03109-TEH Document 4 Filed 07/24/15 Page 5 of 5