Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01042/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01042-0/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

CHRIS LOGAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1042 LKK EFB P

vs.

HAWKINS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This

proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial

partial payment of $17 is assessed pursuant to section 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff must make monthly

payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his trust account. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward payments from

plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10

until the filing fee is paid. 

Case 2:07-cv-01042-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 7
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 court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendant Dr. Hawkins for deliberate

indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendants Nurse Scott or the

Chief Medical Officer at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”).

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Dr. Hawkins and pursue his claims

against only that defendant or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to state a

cognizable claim against defendants Nurse Scott and the Chief Medical Officer at MCSP.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants Nurse Scott and the Chief Medical Officer at MCSP, he has 30 days so to do. He is

not obligated to amend his complaint. If he does, he must identify by name the MCSP Chief

Medical Officer who violated his rights. Otherwise, this defendant cannot be served with

process.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendant Dr. Hawkins, against whom he

has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must return materials for service

of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent

to dismissal of all claims against defendants Nurse Scott and the Chief Medical Officer at MCSP

without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). If plaintiff

contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their

Case 2:07-cv-01042-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 7
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

agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading).

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and

directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting

point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a

claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Plaintiff must eliminate from his pleading all preambles, introductions, argument,

speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996)

(affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El

v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). 

Plaintiff alleges that when he complained of pain caused from a neck injury, Nurse Scott

told him that she could do no more than give him the medication currently prescribed, 800 m.g.

Gabapentin three times daily. He asserts that other medications are better suited to his condition. 

Plaintiff also alleges that he has submitted a number of requests for medical attention, which

either have been ignored or denied. He asserts that this is the fault of the Chief Medical Officer

because that officer is in charge of medical treatment at MCSP. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him

Case 2:07-cv-01042-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 7
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

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). 

A supervisor is liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if he participated in

or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them, Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), or if he implemented a policy so deficient that the

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional

violation, Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989). 

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Nurse Scott and the Chief Medical Officer of

MCSP fail under these theories.

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 A long, rambling pleading including many

defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional

injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely will result in

delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). The “[f]actual allegations

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the

allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corporation v.

Case 2:07-cv-01042-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 4 of 7
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

Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s pleading will

be construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a first amended complaint plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry

and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may

impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1 et seq. An appeal must be

presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is

further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted

by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation

of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claims against defendant

Dr. Hawkins. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action and make an initial

payment of $17. All payments shall be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the

Case 2:07-cv-01042-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 5 of 7
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

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Nurse Scott and the Chief Medical Officer at MCSP are

dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his

complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged

to amend his complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendant Dr. Hawkins. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall

provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed June 1, 2007, one USM-285

form and instructions for service of process on defendant Dr. Hawkins. Within 20 days of

service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with

the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and two copies of the endorsed June 1,

2007, complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of

process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendant Dr. Hawkins will be required to respond to

plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the

court will construe recommend that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Nurse Scott and the

Chief Medical Officer at MCSP be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

Dated: July 25, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01042-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS LOGAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1042 LKK EFB P

vs.

HAWKINS, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed form USM-285 

 2 copies of the June 1, 2007 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01042-LKK -EFB Document 5 Filed 07/26/07 Page 7 of 7