Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02134/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02134-7/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

ANTHONY E. MACK, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2134 MCE CMK P

vs.

MARSHA ONO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel who alleges that

defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and have continually denied

him medical care. On April 25, 2006, the court filed findings and recommendations

recommending dismissal of several named defendants. In light of plaintiff’s objections filed

May 25, 2006, the court VACATES the April 25, 2006 findings and recommendations and issues

the following order.

On February 28, 2006, the court found that plaintiff had stated a cognizable

complaint against some of the defendants named in this action, but had failed to state a

cognizable claim against several others. The court stated that plaintiff would be given thirty day

to file an amended complaint, and that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a

recommendation that the defendants against whom plaintiff failed to state a claim be dismissed

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 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

2

from this action. 

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, on April 25, 2006, the

court filed a recommendation that those defendants be dismissed from this action. On May 11,

2006 plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, which noted that the court

had failed to address, in any of its orders, plaintiff’s claims against defendants Monte Penner,

Elaine Mill and Dr. O’Brian. 

Plaintiff is correct that the court inadvertently neglected to address plaintiff’s

claims against these three defendants. Accordingly, the court will re-screen plaintiff’s complaint

and give him another opportunity to file amended complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiff brings this action against Monte Penner, M.D., Neil Hirsch, Bernard

Kordan, M.D., Baughman, M.D., J. Moor, M.D., I. Baroyal, M.D., Salvatore A. Latteri, M.D.,

T.Vo, M.D., Richardo S. Centeno, M.D., Andrew Lucine, M.D., George Parkerinson, M.D.,

Nelson Parker, M.D., Marsha Ono, M.D., D. Thor, M.D., Norris Hollie, M.D., C.M. Hynum,

M.D., J.M Krossa, Elaine Hill, Dr. O’Brian, and John/Jane Doe. Plaintiff alleges that defendants

have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and have continually denied him medical

care. When plaintiff was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison in 1999, he was attacked by

several other inmates, causing injury to his shoulder. Plaintiff alleges that he was initially given

medical attention by a medical technical assistant but that the severity of his shoulder injury was

not acknowledged or recognized by medical staff. Plaintiff states that his complaints about pain

in his shoulder were ignored by prison medical staff. Plaintiff alleges that he was in daily

“agony and pain” and endured many “stress filled sleepless nights.” Plaintiff states that the

delay in surgically repairing his injury resulted in a permanent loss of mobility to his shoulder. 

II. Standard of Review

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.

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 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

3

§ 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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based

on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

See

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however

inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In

reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the

complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976),

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the

plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

III. Discussion

Deliberate indifference to a prisoners serious injury states a cause of action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). A serious medical need

exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the

“unnecessary or wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 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

4

1992). Delay of, or interference with, medical treatment can also amount to deliberate

indifference. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). 

While deliberate indifference to a serious injury or failure to provide medical

treatment may state a claim cognizable in a civil rights action, a plaintiff must connect the named

defendants clearly with the claimed denial of his rights. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837, 843 (1994) (official’s liability for deliberate indifference to assault requires that official

know of and disregard an “excessive risk”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)

(“liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the

defendant (citation omitted) . . . [t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9 Cir. 1978) (discussing “requisite causal connection” th

in section 1983 cases between named defendant and claimed injury); Barren v. Harrington, 152

F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege

facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the

deprivation of his civil rights."). 

Construing the complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiff, the court finds that

plaintiff states a colorable claim for relief against defendants Nelson M. Parker, M.D., Marsha

Ona, M.D., Andrew Lucine, M.D.,, Ricardo S. Centeno M.D., and Neil Hirsch M.D., and Elaine

Hill pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). However, the court cannot

determine from the complaint what role, if any, defendants Bernard Kordon, M.D., Baughman,

M.D., J. Moor, M.D.,I. Baroyal, M.D., Salvatore A. Latteri, M.D., T. Vo, M.D.,

George Parkinson, M.D., D.Thor, M.D., Norris Hollie, M.D., C.M. Hynum, M.D., J.M. Kaossa,

Dr. O’Brian or John/Jane Does played in the alleged deprivation of plaintiff’s rights.

Plaintiff fails to discuss any causal connection between the other named

defendants and his alleged injuries. For example, plaintiff states in his complaint that “x-rays

were ordered by Dr. Baughman and completed on December 26, 2001, however the results were

never disclosed [to plaintiff] until [he] filed a grievance....” Such a statement does not establish a

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 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

5

causal connection between Dr. Baughman and plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Plaintiff states “while

at C.C.I. Tehachari...nothing was done to alleviate the suffering. They just delayed treatment

and allowed [exacerbation], further aggravation.” This statement does not tell the court, or give

notice to defendants, who “they” is. Conclusory statements that a defendant was deliberately

indifferent and deprived plaintiff of medical care do also do not meet the pleading requirements. 

In short, plaintiff must detail in his complaint how each named defendant acted indifferently to

his medical needs and/or denied plaintiff medical care. 

Because plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against all named defendants,

the court will dismiss his complaint, in its entirety, with leave to amend. Plaintiff is cautioned

that should he fail to file an amended complaint, the court will recommend that this action be

dismissed. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th

Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

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

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 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

6

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days from

the date this order is filed.

2. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed. 

DATED: May 25, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02134-MCE-DMC Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 Page 6 of 6