Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02680/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02680-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2680 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. L. PORTER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel in this civil

rights action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The case was referred to this court by

Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On November 20, 2007, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to

amend. The court gave detailed consideration not only to plaintiff’s allegations, but also the 80

pages of attachments. The court explained the law and why plaintiff failed to state a claim, and

gave plaintiff time to file a second amended complaint to correct those defects. On December

26, 2007, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The court has reviewed that amended

complaint as well, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and for the reasons explained below finds that

it also fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 15 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 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

2

The second amended complaint contains most of the same allegations as the first

amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that on November 18, 2005, T. Friedrichs found that

plaintiff did not need to be held at Solano State Prison for medical reasons, clearing the way for

plaintiff’s transfer to Folsom State Prison, even though he was scheduled for back surgery. 

Thus, on December 7, 2005, plaintiff was transferred from Solano State Prison to Folsom State

Prison, causing prolonged delay in receiving surgery during which he suffered pain. He alleges

that all defendants knew of medical condition, but permitted the transfer anyway. Plaintiff

complains of the administrative appeals process, alleging that S. Kansier, J. Dunlap, Kim

Stocker and D. L. Porter refused to explain why he was transferred before his scheduled back

surgery. He alleges that defendants V. Mini and S. Kansier rescinded his written permission to

remain standing when there is an order to “get down,” and that he subsequently was disciplined

for disobeying such an order. Plaintiff was scheduled for spinal fusion surgery on June 26, 2006,

but because of the “CDC messing up” his medical appointments, he did not have surgery until

July 10, 2006. Plaintiff alleges that unspecified defendants denied him follow-up treatment for

his back surgery. Finally, he adds the allegation that unspecified defendants have violated his

right of access to the courts by opening his “legal mail.”

As explained in the November 20, 2007, order, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

plaintiff must allege an identified defendant deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the

Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim defendants provided constitutionally inadequate

medical care, plaintiff must allege acts or omissions evidencing identified defendants knew of

and disregarded plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976);

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Neither defendants’ negligence nor plaintiff’s

general disagreement with the treatment he received suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S.

at 106; Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90

F.3d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1996). When a prisoner alleges a delay in medical treatment, he must

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 15 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 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

3

show the delay caused an injury. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992),

overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.2d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en

banc); see also Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334-35 (9th Cir.1990) (several day delay

in treatment did not violate Eighth Amendment where there was no emergency and given

plaintiff’s condition, i.e., a severe shoulder injury, the only remedy immediately available was

painkillers). To state a claim for the deprivation of procedural due process, plaintiff must allege

a defendant deprived him of a liberty interest, which may arise independently under the due

process clause or as freedom from state deprivation or restraint imposing “atypical and

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v.

Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). Prisoners have no federally protected right to an

administrative grievance procedure. See, Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988). Finally, to state a claim he was denied access to the courts,

plaintiff must allege that he was denied necessary assistance in preparing and filing a habeas

corpus petition or section 1983 complaint, such as meaningful access to an adequate law library

or assistance from persons trained in the law, and that the deprivation actually injured his habeas

or section 1983 litigation efforts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 354, 356 (1996).

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish a cause of action under

any theory for relief.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128

(9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file

amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a

claim).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 15 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 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

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 9, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 15 Filed 04/10/08 Page 4 of 4