Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06755/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06755-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KELLY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 19-06755 BLF (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a nurse at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) 

where is currently incarcerated. (Docket No. 1, “Compl.”) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis shall be addressed in a separate order. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

Case 5:19-cv-06755-BLF Document 8 Filed 02/07/20 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

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Nurse Kelly failed to provide him with his 

medication at 5:00 p.m. on May 12, 2019, when he asked her to return in ten minutes and 

failed to do so. (Compl. at 3.) When he asked for his medication later that night at 8:00 

p.m., Defendant “went into a loud tirade stating, ‘You wetbacks... think whatever you 

want you can get it at your time... I should report you to I.C.E. and have you deported to 

Mexico, where you won’t receive any medication... I’m not giving you your meds. Your 

a faggot anways... I don’t need to deal with your kind [sic].’” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff did not 

receive his medication that day. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the next day, on May 13, 2019, 

Defendant again denied him health care when she did not give him his medication as 

requested. (Id.) Plaintiff claims Defendant’s words indicate “bigotry,” “racial profiling,” 

“racial bias and discrimination,” and “sexual (gender) discrimination.” (Id.) Plaintiff 

claims Defendant’s actions constitute racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and denial 

of medical treatment. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks damages. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim. With respect to 

Defendant’s alleged comments on May 12, 2019, allegations of verbal harassment and 

abuse fail to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 

F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) overruled in part on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 

F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008); Rutledge v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1353 

(9th Cir. 1981), aff'd sub nom. Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983); see, e.g., Burton v. 

Case 5:19-cv-06755-BLF Document 8 Filed 02/07/20 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

Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99 (8th Cir. 1986) (“mere words, without more, do not invade a 

federally protected right”); Ellingburg v. Lucas, 518 F.2d 1196, 1197 (8th Cir. 1975) 

(prisoner does not have cause of action under § 1983 for being called obscene name by 

prison employee); Batton v. North Carolina, 501 F. Supp. 1173, 1180 (E.D.N.C. 1980) 

(mere verbal abuse by prison officials does not state claim under § 1983). This is so even 

if the verbal harassment is racially motivated. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1252 

(9th Cir. 1982) (federal court cannot order guards to refrain from using racial slurs to 

harass prisoners); Burton, 791 F.2d at 101 n.1 (use of racial slurs in prison does not offend 

Constitution). But harassment coupled with conduct implicating the Eighth Amendment's 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment may indeed present a claim cognizable 

under § 1983. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 528-30 (1984) (malicious cell 

searches and calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs may implicate 8th 

Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 

F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (harassment with regards to medical problems cognizable 

if it constitutes deliberate indifference). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state any claim 

against Defendant Kelly based solely on her abusive words to him on May 12, 2019. 

Rather, he must connect her words with conduct implicating the Eighth Amendment in 

order to state a claim. Id. 

However, Plaintiff’s allegations are also insufficient to state a claim under the 

Eighth Amendment. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth 

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), 

overruled in part on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). 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. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. A “serious” medical need exists if the failure 

Case 5:19-cv-06755-BLF Document 8 Filed 02/07/20 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

to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary 

and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 

104). A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he 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). Here, Plaintiff fails to explain what the medication was for to 

establish that he had a serious medical need to satisfy the first element for an Eighth 

Amendment claim. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Secondly, he fails to allege that Defendant 

was aware that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm without his medication and 

disregarded that risk by failing to provide him with that medication for two days to 

establish the second element. Id. Plaintiff shall be afforded an opportunity to file an 

amended complaint to state sufficient facts to support an Eighth Amendment claim. 

In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should keep the following principles 

in mind. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 only if 

Plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally 

protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of 

Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a 

constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, 

participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally 

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 

F.2d at 633. Accordingly, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts describing each named 

defendant’s actions or failure to act that caused the violation of his Eighth Amendment 

rights. 

Case 5:19-cv-06755-BLF Document 8 Filed 02/07/20 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

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons state above, the Court orders as follows: 

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within twenty-eight (28) 

days from the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint using the 

court’s form complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 

number used in this order, i.e., Case No. C 19-06755 BLF (PR), and the words 

“AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Plaintiff must answer all the questions on 

the form in order for the action to proceed. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended 

complaint supersedes the original, and Plaintiff may not make references to the original 

complaint. Claims not included in the amended complaint are no longer claims and 

defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). 

Failure to respond in accordance with this order by filing an amended 

complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without 

prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall terminate “Salinas Valley State Prison” as a party to this action as 

Plaintiff merely named the prison to indicate Defendant Kelly’s place of employment and 

not as a separate defendant in this action. (Compl. at 2.) 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy of this 

order to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\06755Rodriguez_dwlta 

Case 5:19-cv-06755-BLF Document 8 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5 of 5