Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01469-2/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

BRIAN G. LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGAR, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01469-OWW DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO BE

COGNIZABLE

(Doc. 1)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Brian G. Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on August 31,

2007, and transferred from the Northern District of California on October 9, 2007. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-01469-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/03/08 Page 1 of 6
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

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

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 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. P. 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. 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 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)).

II. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California State Prison - Lancaster. The events giving rise

to the claims at issue in this action allegedly occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison. Plaintiff

alleges that John Doe #1 received a medical slip call for emergency treatment of plaintiff’s staph

infection. Plaintiff alleges that medical staff ignored numerous requests, and that John Doe #2, Chief

Medical Officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison, ignored plaintiff’s pleas and requests. Plaintiff

states that he was left with a staph infection for one month without proper care, causing a lifethreatening situation. Plaintiff names John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Arnold Schwarzeneggar,

Governor of the State of California, as defendants. 

 “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part

test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by

demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was

deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s

Case 1:07-cv-01469-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/03/08 Page 2 of 6
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

pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Id. (citingMcGuckin, 974 F.2d

at 1060). Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison

physicians provide medical care.” Id. (citing McGuckin at 1060 (internal quotations omitted)).

Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to

further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404,

407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff has sufficientlyalleged the existence of a serious medical need and that further harm

resulted due to the delay in treating his medical condition. Further, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient

facts to allow him to proceed against John Doe #2, the Chief Medical Officer at Pleasant Valley State

Prison. 

However, Plaintiff’s allegations do not give rise to a claim for relief against John Doe #1 or

defendant Schwarzeneggar. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal

Constitution and laws.” Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997)

(internal quotations omitted). “To the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal Constitution,

Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id. 

Section 1983 plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A

person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person ‘does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally

required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500

Case 1:07-cv-01469-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/03/08 Page 3 of 6
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

F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he

‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal

participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the

actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’” Id.

(quoting Johnson at 743-44). 

 Plaintiff states only that John Doe 1 is an employee of the California Department of

Corrections. It is unclear whether John Doe 1 was a medical staff employee, what actions defendant

John Doe 1 took, and how his/her actions are linked to the deprivation alleged by plaintiff. 

With respect to defendant Schwarzeneggar, plaintiff fails to allege any action undertaken by

this defendant that resulted in the deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The fact that

defendant Schwarzeneggar is the Governor of the State of California, standing alone, does not

provide a basis for liability.

Plaintiff shall be provided with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. 

III. Request for Temporary Restraining Order

In addition to money damages, plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) “against

any further abuses, in the Constitution Amendments One, Four, Eight and Fourteenth Amendments”.

Plaintiff has not stated against whom he seeks a temporary restraining order. It also appears that

plaintiff’s request may be moot, since he has since been transferred to CSP-Lancaster, and is

presumably no longer subject to the conditions giving rise to this action. (When an inmate seeks

injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison where he is incarcerated, his claims for such

relief become moot when he is no longer subjected to those conditions. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d

891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948

F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

IV. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of counsel. The court deems this request addressed and

resolved by the Court’s order issued June 23, 2008, denying plaintiff’s motion for appointment of

counsel filed June 12, 2008. (Doc. 13).

///

Case 1:07-cv-01469-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/03/08 Page 4 of 6
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

V. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim under the Eighth Amendment against Defendant John Doe

2, but fails to state a claim against defendants John Doe 1 or Schwarzeneggar. The Court will

provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified

by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding only

against Defendant John Doe 2, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing, and the Court will issue

a Findings and Recommendations recommending that Defendants John Doe 1 and Schwarzeneggar

be dismissed from this action, and will forward Plaintiff one summons and one USM-285 form for

completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal

to initiate service of process upon John Doe 2.

If Plaintiff opts to amend, his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but

must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or

other federal rights, Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2007). Although accepted

as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended complaint and any

attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended complaint.

Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. When a named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between that defendant and the claimed constitutional violation

must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.

Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for

relief under section 1983 for supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the

defendant either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient

Case 1:07-cv-01469-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/03/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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) (internal citations

omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

1474.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in

this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendant John Doe 2 on his

Eighth Amendment medical care claim; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01469-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/03/08 Page 6 of 6