Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00016-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM CROWDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. A. GAULDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00016 OWW SMS P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF

DEFENDANTS SHEPPARD-BROOKS AND

FINLEY

(Doc. 1)

I. Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Complaint

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff William Crowder (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January

6, 2006. Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and equitable relief from defendants Correctional

Officer R. A. Gaulden, Chief Deputy Warden D. D. Sheppard-Brooks, and Sergeant G. A. Finley.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants arise from defendant Gaulden’s alleged disclosure to another

inmate that plaintiff is HIV positive.

On August 23, 2006, the court issued an order finding that plaintiff’s complaint states a claim

against defendant Gaulden under section 1983 based on the revelation of plaintiff’s private medical

information, but does not contain a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983

against defendants Sheppard-Brooks and Finley. The court ordered plaintiff to either file an

amended complaint or notify the court of his willingness to proceed only against defendant Gaulden.

On September 20, 2006, plaintiff notified the court that he is willing to dismiss defendants SheppardCase 1:06-cv-00016-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Brooks and Finleyfrom this action and proceed onlyagainst defendant Gaulden. Accordingly, based

on plaintiff’s notice, this Findings and Recommendation now issues.

 B. Screening Requirement

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

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

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately

prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may

appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the

test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S.

232, 236 (1974)); see also Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need

suffice only to put the opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262

F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir. 2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a

plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal

interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not

///

Case 1:06-cv-00016-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

1. Claim Against Defendant Gaulden

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on March 25, 2005, defendant Gaulden informed

plaintiff’s cellmate that plaintiff is HIV positive. Plaintiff alleges that he has a constitutional right

to medical privacy.

“The Constitution protects two kinds of privacy interest. ‘One is the individual interest in

avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain

kinds of important decisions.’” Doe v. Attorney General of the United States, 941 F.2d 780, 795

(9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977)). “The constitutionally protected

privacy interest in avoiding the disclosure of personal matters clearly encompasses medical

information and its confidentiality,” Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260,

1269 (9th Cir. 1998), and “information regarding an individual’s HIV-status or AIDS diagnosis

. . . fall[s] with the ambit of the privacy protection afforded medical information,” Doe v. Attorney

General of the United States, 941 F.2d 780, 796 (9th Cir. 1991). “The privacy protection afforded

medical information is not absolute; rather, it is a conditional right which may be infringed upon a

showing of proper governmental interest.” Roe v. Sherry, 91 F3d 1270 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation

omitted). 

The court finds that plaintiff’s allegation is sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief under

section 1983 against defendant Gaulden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 506;

Hydrick v. Hunter, 449 F.3d 978, 991 (9th Cir. 2006); Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952, 956-57

(9th Cir. 2004).

2. Claims Against Defendants Sheppard-Brooks and Finley

Plaintiff also alleges claims for relief under section 1983 against defendants Sheppard-Brooks

and Finley. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Finley denied his inmate appeal of the incident with

defendant Gaulden at the first level of review and defendant Sheppard-Brooks partially granted his

inmate appeal at the second level of review.

Case 1:06-cv-00016-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead (1) that the defendant acted under

color of state law and (2) that the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or

federal statutes. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). “[A prison]

grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the

inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568

F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no

liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance procedure);

Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure confers no

liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Actions in

reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability under a § 1983

action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. 

The constitutional violation alleged in this action arose from defendant Gaulden’s revelation

of plaintiff’s HIV status. Defendants Sheppard-Brooks and Finley’s consideration of plaintiff’s

appeal of Gaulden’s act provides no basis upon which to impose liability on them. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants

Sheppard-Brooks and Finley.

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against defendant Gaulden under

section 1983 based on the revelation of plaintiff’s private medical information, but does not contain

a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983 against defendants Sheppard-Brooks

and Finley. Plaintiff was provided with the opportunity to amend but opted to proceed only against

defendant Gaulden. Therefore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action proceed on plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 6, 2006, against defendant

Gaulden under section 1983 for violating plaintiff’s right to privacy by revealing

plaintiff’s medical information; and 

2. Defendants Sheppard-Brooks and Finley be dismissed from this action based on

plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them

under section 1983. 

Case 1:06-cv-00016-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00016-LJO -SMS Document 12 Filed 10/05/06 Page 5 of 5