Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03633/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03633-3/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 1

 Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 11.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-3633 EDL (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docket No. 20)

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison - Lancaster, has filed a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis in a

separate order. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to

amend.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek 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. Id. at

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).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

Case 3:15-cv-03633-EDL Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 5
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

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff names as defendants: Warden Muniz, Health Care Services, Nurse

Practitioner R. Erguiza, Dr. L. Gamboa, Dr. K. Kumar, Dr. Birdsong, Deputy Director J.

Lewis, and the nurse practitioner “assigned to B Facility as a doctor.” Plaintiff alleges that,

from July 2015 through October 2015 when he was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison,

he fell ill due to his sarcoidosis disease, and suffered from vomiting, difficulty breathing,

swollen limbs, hives throughout his body, sore joints and muscles, cramps and muscle

spasms, weakness, and other ailments. Plaintiff’s appointment with a Rheumatologist

continued to be postponed, and Plaintiff believes that the medical doctors or medical

administrative staff are not concerned with his pain and suffering. Plaintiff alleges that his

medical needs are not being addressed or treated adequately. As currently pled, however,

Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief. The complaint will be dismissed with

leave to amend.

In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment as it

relates to medical treatment, Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a serious medical need, and

(2) the nature of the defendants’ response to that need. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller,

104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A prison official 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. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994). The prison official 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. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the

official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v.

County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case 3:15-cv-03633-EDL Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 5
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

For each instance in which Plaintiff allegedly was denied medical treatment, Plaintiff

must explain what his medical need was, and allege facts showing deliberate indifference

to it. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment). Plaintiff should (a) describe the medical need, (b) identify the date on which

the medical treatment was refused, (c) identify who refused to provide medical treatment,

(d) describe how he alerted that person to his need for medical treatment, and (e) state

how the refusal to provide medical treatment affected him.

As to every defendant Plaintiff seeks to hold liable, Plaintiff must name him/her in his

amended complaint and must allege his claim(s) against him/her. In his amended

complaint, he should describe what each defendant did (or failed to do) that caused a

violation of his constitutional rights so that each proposed defendant has fair notice of his

allegedly wrongful conduct. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (liability

under § 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by a defendant). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff

can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the deprivation

of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d

1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff must link each defendant’s actions or inactions with

plaintiff’s claims. He must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” actions

which violated his or her rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A

defendant cannot be held liable simply based on his membership in a group; rather, each

individual defendant’s participation in unlawful conduct must be shown. Chuman v. Wright,

76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996). Either personal involvement or integral participation of

the officers in the alleged constitutional violation is required before liability may be imposed;

liability may not be imposed based solely on an officer’s presence during the incident. See

Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 769-70 (9th Cir. 2009). 

To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to impose supervisory liability on some

Case 3:15-cv-03633-EDL Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 5
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

defendants, a supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678

F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.

2011)). Plaintiff should keep in mind that where there is no evidence that the supervisor

was personally involved or connected to the alleged violation, the supervisor may not be

liable. See Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, 599 F. 3d 946, 961-62 (9th Cir.

2010).

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to

provide the information as specified above. Although the federal rules require brevity in

pleading, a complaint must be sufficient to give the defendants “fair notice” of the claim and

the “grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). 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). 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to add new factors or evidence, and has included

facts in an effort to update the court on events that have occurred since he filed his

complaint in December 2015. Plaintiff’s motion is denied as unnecessary. Plaintiff may

include these new facts in his amended complaint, on the condition that he has exhausted

his claim(s) through the administrative grievance procedure.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion to add new factors or evidence is DENIED as unnecessary.

2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint

must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include

the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the

original and supplemental complaints, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

Case 3:15-cv-03633-EDL Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended

complaint within the designated time and in compliance with this order will result in

the dismissal of this action.

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure

to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April , 2016. 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

P:\PRO-SE\EDL\CR.15\Dawson633dwla.wpd

27

Case 3:15-cv-03633-EDL Document 23 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 5