Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00629/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00629-1/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

ALEXANDER ROBINSON, III, No. CIV S-08-0629-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on March

21, 2008.

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 2:08-cv-00629-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 4
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

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support

the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff names M. Knowles, the prison warden, and R. McCarthy, a prison

psychologist, as defendants to this action. Plaintiff’s allegations, in their entirety, are as follows:

. . . The Warden, M. Knowles, is responsible for procedures being

in place for adequate medical care, which were neglected on July 10, 2007,

at California Medical Facility. Mrs. R. McCarthy, Senior Psychologist, at

California Medical Facility, on July 10, 2007, due to fabricated stories, and

a misdiagnosis on her part, had me placed in E.O.P, whereas I lost my job

and have suffered mental and emotional injury. This is a violation of the

Eighth Amendment of the U.S.C.A., Constitution simply because she

showed reckless or callous indifference to my federally protected rights. 

(Cruel and Unusual Punishment). 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 

II. DISCUSSION

At best, plaintiff’s allegations give rise to: (1) a due process claim based on his

contention that defendant McCarthy “fabricated stories” which resulted in his placement in

“E.O.P.”; and (2) an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical treatment.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00629-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Due Process

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to

state a claim of deprivation of due process, a plaintiff must allege the existence of a liberty or

property interest for which the protection is sought. See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672

(1977); Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). Liberty interests can arise both from

the Constitution and from state law. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466 (1983); Meachum

v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-27 (1976); Smith v. Sumner, 994 F.2d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir. 1993). In

determining whether the Constitution itself protects a liberty interest, the court should consider

whether the practice in question “. . . is within the normal limits or range of custody which the

conviction has authorized the State to impose.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557-58; Smith, 994 F.2d at

1405. Applying this standard, the Supreme Court has concluded that the Constitution itself

provides no liberty interest in good-time credits, see Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557; in remaining in the

general population, see Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485-86 (1995); in not losing privileges,

see Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 323 (1976); in staying at a particular institution, see

Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225-27; or in remaining in a prison in a particular state, see Olim v.

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-47 (1983). 

In light of the foregoing standards, it does not appear that plaintiff can state a

cognizable due process claim based on placement in “E.O.P.”

Eighth Amendment

Plaintiff claims that defendant McCarthy provided a “misdiagnosis.” Negligence

in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give rise to a claim under the

Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a difference of opinion between

the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not give

rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). 

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-00629-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 04/07/08 Page 3 of 4
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

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed

with prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

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

Findings and Recommendations.” 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).

DATED: April 4, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00629-MCE -CMK Document 7 Filed 04/07/08 Page 4 of 4