Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00740-7/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

TOR WEBSTER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0740 GEB CMK P

vs.

ROD HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on April 5, 2006. On May 9, 2006, the court

found that plaintiff failed to state a Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Woodford and

that plaintiff had failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim against all

defendants. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was

advised that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that his

Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Woodford be dismissed and that his Fourteenth

Amendment Equal Protection claim be dismissed. 

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint; accordingly the court issued

findings and recommendations recommending dismissal. Plaintiff failed to file objections to the

findings and recommendations. The findings and recommendations were adopted on August 18,

2006, and the court issued a service order on September 21, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00740-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 10/30/06 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

2

On October 20, 2006, plaintiff submitted the necessary documents for service of

the remaining defendants and also filed a motion to amend his complaint, accompanied by an

amended complaint. “A party may amend the party’s pleading as a matter of course at any time

before a responsive pleading is served...” Fed. R. Civ. P 15(a). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion

to file an amended complaint is granted. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based

on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however

inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In

reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the

complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976),

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the

Case 2:06-cv-00740-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 10/30/06 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

3

plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

I. Background

As in his original complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint names Rod Hickman, 

Jeanne Woodford, K. Edwards, and J. Kidney as defendants; however, he adds an additional

defendant, Monte Penner, M.D. He asserts that defendants violated his constitutional rights by

denying him equal protection and were deliberately indifferent to his personal safety and to his

medical needs. The gist of plaintiff’s complaint is that he was in an exercise yard occupied

“exclusively by black inmates” when an altercation broke out. Defendant Edwards, who

allegedly has a reputation for shooting black inmates, shot into the yard to break up the

altercation. One of the rounds shot by defendant Edwards struck plaintiff in the right hand,

causing major injuries. 

Plaintiff was taken to the prison infirmary, where he was seen by Monte Penner,

M.D. who allegedly “merely wrapped plaintiff’s hand up, gave [him] some Tylenols [sic] and,

sent [him] to his cell with a promise to see a doctor. It appears that plaintiff alleges that he never

received medical attention, despite filing many grievances. He states that on February 24, 2005,

he told defendant Penner that he was in excruciating pain, but defendant Penner told plaintiff that

he would review plaintiff’s x-ray and sent plaintiff back to his cell. Plaintiff states that he has

experienced continuous pain in his hand, experienced problems with gripping objects and has not

received medical attention other than Tylenol. 

II. Standard of Review

When prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation

of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is whether the force was applied in a goodfaith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. 

See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). As plaintiff asserts that defendant Edwards

did not apply force in a good faith manner, he has stated a cognizable claim against him. 

Denial of medical attention to prisoners constitutes an Eighth Amendment

Case 2:06-cv-00740-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 10/30/06 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

4

violation if the denial amounts to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need of the

prisoner. See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay of, or

interference with, medical treatment can also amount to deliberate indifference. See Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The court finds that plaintiff has stated a

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Penner. 

Liability under § 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the

defendant. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor is only liable

for the constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. See id. For example,

denial of appeals is, in some cases sufficient to establish supervisory liability, see Hamilton v.

Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992), and knowledge of a policy and practice that

allegedly resulted in an inmates rape could be sufficient to establish liability. See Redman v.

County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1991)(en banc). 

Here, plaintiff has shown that he sent a detailed letter to defendant Hickman

informing him of the alleged denial of medical care to plaintiff. Plaintiff has also shown that

defendant Kernan knew of the alleged denial of medical care through plaintiff’s appeals, but

failed to act to remedy it. 

Accordingly, the court finds that the complaint states a colorable claim for relief

under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Edwards, Hickman, and Kernan pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

In his amended complaint, plaintiff appears to allege that Defendant Kidney, who

is the use of force analyst, failed to grant his grievance concerning the use of force. Plaintiff has

alleged in his complaint that defendant Edwards had a policy of shooting black inmates. 

Accordingly, the denial of plaintiff’s appeal regarding use of force may be sufficient to establish

supervisory liability. See Redman, 942 F.2d at 1446-47. Accordingly, plaintiff states a

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Kidney. 

Case 2:06-cv-00740-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 10/30/06 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

5

Plaintiff states that defendant Woodford was aware of plaintiff’s denial of medical

care by virtue of his appeals to the director’s level. While it is not clear whether defendant

Woodford is actually made aware of director’s level appeals, construing the complaint broadly

and in a light most favorable to defendant compels the court to conclude that plaintiff has stated

a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Woodford. 

The court finds that plaintiff fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment equal

protection claim against all defendants. Plaintiff has not linked his being shot in the hand or his

denial of medical care with any equal protection claim, apart from conclusory allegations. To

plead an equal protection violation, plaintiff must allege he has been treated differently from

others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of

intentional or purposeful discrimination. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9 Cir. 1997). th

Plaintiff has failed to link his factual allegations to his legal claims. See McHenry v. Renne, 84

F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, the court will allow plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint

to state a cognizable Equal Protection claim. 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, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, 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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights

violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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

Case 2:06-cv-00740-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 10/30/06 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

6

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. 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 a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: October 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00740-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 10/30/06 Page 6 of 6