Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04285/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04285-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ BRATCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-4285 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Christopher Martinez Bratcher, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

an amended civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants have denied

him adequate medical care and basic necessities, thereby violating his Eighth Amendment

rights. For the reasons stated below, the amended complaint is dismissed. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a

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

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

and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:14-cv-04285-NC Document 8 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under § 1983 if the

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

protected right. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives

another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 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. Id. at 633. The

inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of

each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

deprivation. Id. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead

“set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Id.

at 634. 

II. Factual Background

According to the amended complaint, in February 2014, Plaintiff requested medical

assistance regarding a rash on his skin that he received from an unclean mattress. Nondefendant Nurse K. Zalwango diagnosed Plaintiff as having an inflammatory skin condition

and prescribed hydrocortisone cream. Plaintiff was instructed to return for a follow-up in 7

days.

Approximately 7 days later, Plaintiff requested medical assistance, complaining that

the hydrocortisone cream was not working and the rash had gotten worse. The following

day, Nurse K. Zalwango noted that the rash had spread, and Plaintiff was then prescribed

Triamcinolone and Vistaril for 2 weeks, and instructed to change his clothes daily.

On March 6, 2014, Plaintiff requested medical assistance, again complaining that the

rash was worsening and the medication was not working. On April 1, 2014, Defendant Dr.

Fernando Tuvera prescribed zinc oxide and Eucerin lotion. However, Plaintiff never

received either. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Tuvera and Defendant Dr. Kim Kumar were

Case 3:14-cv-04285-NC Document 8 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

In addition, Plaintiff claims that on May 6, 2014, Defendants Dr. Gamboa and Deputy

Director J. Lewis failed to provide Plaintiff with a new mattress and sheets. Plaintiff asserts

that their failure to do so showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health.

III. Eighth Amendment

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs amounts to the cruel and

unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

104 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). A prison official

violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation

alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately

indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

Plaintiff’s allegations, even liberally construed, are insufficient to state a claim for

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs or health. Specifically, the amended

complaint does not allege any facts suggesting that Defendants acted with deliberate

indifference. A defendant 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. Id. at 837. The defendant 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. “[T]o prevail on a claim involving choices between alternative

courses of treatment, a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment ‘was

medically unacceptable under the circumstances,’ and was chosen ‘in conscious disregard of

an excessive risk to [the prisoner’s] health.’” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (citation omitted). 

Here, liberally construed, the facts show that Dr. Tuvera attended to Plaintiff on April

1, 2014 and prescribed zinc oxide and Eucerin lotion. Although Plaintiff apparently did not

receive the zinc oxide or Eucerin lotion, Plaintiff does not provide any facts from which it

can be inferred that Dr. Tuvera was responsible for delivering either. Nor can it be inferred

that Dr. Tuvera delayed or denied either prescription from getting to Plaintiff. Moreover,

Plaintiff alleges no non-conclusory facts about what Dr. Kim Kumar did or did not do that

Case 3:14-cv-04285-NC Document 8 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

demonstrates deliberate indifference. Even at the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege

facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the

deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Here, Plaintiff has not done so. In short, Plaintiff has failed to allege specific facts showing

what Defendants did or failed to do that amounted to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s

medical needs or health. Thus, the claim against Defendants Dr. Tuvera and Dr. Kumar are

DISMISSED. Dismissal is without leave to amend as Plaintiff has already amended once

and it appears further amendment would be futile.

Plaintiff’s vague claim against Defendants Dr. Gamboa and Deputy Director J. Lewis

also fails. Plaintiff merely states that they failed to provide him with a new mattress and

linen sheets. However, even assuming that an unclean mattress is an objectively serious

deprivation of sanitation or other basic necessity, the Court previously advised Plaintiff that

it is Plaintiff’s obligation to write out a complete statement of his claim in his amended

complaint by alleging specific facts showing what these Defendants did or failed to do that

amounted to a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff has

proffered no facts from which it can be inferred that Defendants Dr. Gamboa and Deputy

Director J. Lewis failed to provide Plaintiff with a new mattress and linens knowing that the

failure to do so would subject Plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious harm. Thus, the claim

against Defendants Dr. Gamboa and Deputy Director J. Lewis is DISMISSED. Dismissal is

without leave to amend as Plaintiff has already amended once and it appears further

amendment would be futile.

CONCLUSION

The amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for relief. The

Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04285-NC Document 8 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 4