Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00380/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00380-5/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Elvis Venable is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On September 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) 

recommending that the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure 

to state a cognizable claim for relief. The F&R was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that 

objections were to be filed within thirty days. Although Plaintiff was granted an extension of time in 

which to file objections, Plaintiff did not do so. 

The Court agrees with the F&R that the SAC’s allegations of negligence not show an Eighth 

Amendment violation. The Court further agrees that the SAC’s allegations do not plausibly show 

deliberate indifference. 

However, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiff submitted without authorization a third amended 

complaint (“TAC”), which was lodged by the Court on September 19, 2016. (ECF No. 21.) The 

Court has reviewed the TAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and finds that it does not state plausible 

claims. See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

ELVIS VENABLE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. BITER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND, and STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF Nos. 18, 21]

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 22 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) and holding that a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”). 

First, because “vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that 

each [prison official], though the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2008); OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th 

Cir. 2012); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1206--07 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff has alleged that 

Defendant Patel discontinued various medical appliances. The TAC further suggests that Defendants 

Biter, Lewis, Dileo, and Kubick did not grant Plaintiff’s appeals; however, it is not clear precisely 

what these defendants allegedly did that was improper. There are no allegations against Defendant 

Chen. In order to allege plausible claims against these defendants, Plaintiff must identify each 

defendant and allege precisely what that defendant did in relation to the Eighth Amendment violations 

at issue. See id. Without such allegations, there is not a sufficient “link” between the defendant and 

the constitutional violation, and therefore, no plausible claim.

Second, as the Magistrate Judge has informed Plaintiff, in order to state an Eighth Amendment 

claim related to medical care, Plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate: (1) a serious medical need, 

of which the failure to treat could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain; and (2) the defendant’s response to the medical need was “deliberately indifferent.” 

Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122; Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). To allege deliberate 

indifference, a plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly demonstrate: (1) a purposeful act or failure to 

respond to the prisoner’s pain or serious medical need; and (2) harm caused by the indifference. 

Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1081 (9th Cir. 2013); Wilhelm, 680

F.3d at 1122. Deliberate indifference may be demonstrated by a prison official’s denial, delay, or 

intentional interference with medical treatment, or in the way in which prison officials provide 

medical care. Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1081; Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. However, deliberate indifference is 

not demonstrated by allegations of negligence or medical malpractice, nor is deliberate indifference 

demonstrated by a difference of opinion between a physician and a prisoner or between medical 

professionals concerning the appropriate medical care. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 

1092 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, Plaintiff has alleged that his appliances were taken away from him 

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 22 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 4
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

without explanation upon his transfer to Kern Valley State Prison (his current prison), his underlying 

condition has not improved, and he is in pain. What Plaintiff fails to allege are any facts that 

demonstrate what treatment, if any, he is receiving for his condition or what treatment or assessment 

any defendant made following Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, medical distress, and confiscation of his 

appliances. Without further allegations, the discontinuation by one physician of a particular treatment 

ordered by second physician is merely a difference of medical opinion, it is not deliberate indifference 

and thus, not an Eighth Amendment violation. See Hamby, 821 F.3d at 1092. Additionally, Plaintiff 

admits that as part of the resolution of his first level appeal, he was seen by an orthopedic surgeon. 

This admission suggests that at least one physician in the appeals process acted on Plaintiff’s 

complaints medical, i.e. did not act with deliberate indifference. 

Because the TAC does not state a claim, and because it was filed without authorization, it will 

be stricken. 

In terms of the case as a whole, Plaintiff has been instructed on more than one occasion 

regarding the factual allegations that are necessary to state a plausible claim. It is for this reason that 

the F&R recommends dismissing the case. Nevertheless, a review of the SAC and the proposed TAC 

indicate that one more chance to amend may be appropriate. Plaintiff’s allegations hint that he may 

not be receiving treatment for his chronic medical/physical condition which is resulting in continuous 

pain. For this reason, Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended 

complaint, in addition to expressly alleging what each individual defendant did in relation to the 

Eighth Amendment violations at issue, Plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate deliberate 

indifference by that defendant. Plaintiff should include factual allegations that describe what he 

communicated to each defendant about his condition, pain, appliances, and current treatment, and 

what response and treatment, if any, he received from each of the defendants.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation (Doc. No. 18) is ADOPTED in part and DECLINED 

in part, as discussed above;

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 22 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 4
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

2. The proposed Third Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 21) is STRICKEN as unauthorized;

3. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

4. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, consistent with the analysis of this order, as well 

as the previous screening orders of the Magistrate Judge, within thirty (30) days of service 

of this order; and

5. The failure of Plaintiff to timely file an amended complaint will result in the withdrawal of 

leave to amend and the closure of this case without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00380-AWI-SAB Document 22 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 4