Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01649-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS BARBA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-1649-DMC-P

ORDER

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 10).

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). 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 

Case 2:19-cv-01649-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 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

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. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff Luis Barba names the following as defendants: (1) C. Smith; (2) Sam 

Wong; and (3) Marianna Ashe.1 Defendants are doctors at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, 

California. See ECF No. 10, pg. 3.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to medical 

care by failing to treat plaintiff’s varicose veins. Id. at 3. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, in 

early 2014, defendants became aware of plaintiff’s varicose veins in his left leg. Id. Defendants 

were aware that plaintiff required vascular corrective surgery but denied plaintiff surgery despite 

knowing his condition would deteriorate. Id. Defendant, Dr. Sam Wong, specifically informed 

plaintiff that surgery would be considered after certain medical scans were conducted. However, 

no surgery was ever ordered, and plaintiff was instead given compression socks which did not 

alleviate his pain. Id. All defendants were allegedly aware that plaintiff’s condition worsened 

after this. Id. As a result of this misconduct, plaintiff has experienced severe pain throughout his 

body and fears he will eventually suffer from a stroke. Id.

///

///

///

///

 

1 California Correctional Health Care Services, the only defendant named in the 

original complaint, is not named in the first amended complaint. The Clerk of the Court will be 

directed to update the docket to reflect that this action proceeds against defendants Smith, Wong, 

and Ashe only. 

Case 2:19-cv-01649-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 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

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim against any of the named defendants.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual 

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

§ 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform 

an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth 

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional 

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

Here, plaintiff alleges that the named defendants violated his Eighth Amendment 

rights by failing to provide vascular surgery despite knowing it was medically necessary. See

ECF No. 10, pg. 3. However, almost all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are directed broadly at

the “defendants.” Id. There are no individual factual allegations against either defendant Smith or 

Ashe. As such, it is not clear what their roles they played in plaintiff’s care, nor how they 

specifically deprived plaintiff of his rights. Plaintiff provides slightly more context for his claim 

against Dr. Wong. Plaintiff alleges that Wong assured him that corrective surgery would be 

considered but plaintiff was ultimately granted compression socks instead of surgery. See ECF 

No. 3. However, even here, it is not clear what Wong’s involvement in plaintiff’s care was nor

what conduct is specifically attributable to him beyond telling plaintiff that surgery would be 

“considered.”. It should be noted that, to the degree that plaintiff’s Eight Amendment claims rests 

on Wong choosing to provide plaintiff with compression socks as opposed to surgery, a 

difference of medical opinion is not a proper basis for a deliberate indifference claim. See

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).

Case 2:19-cv-01649-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 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

The court acknowledges that plaintiff’s assertion that the “defendants” knew of his 

need for surgery and refused to act are indeed relevant to an Eighth Amendment claim. However, 

without more, these allegations are simply vague, conclusory, and insufficient to put defendants

on notice of what it is they are claimed to have done. Plaintiff must set forth facts which establish 

a specific causal connection between each individual defendant and the alleged deprivation. See

Leer, 844 F .2d at 634. Applying this standard to plaintiff’s claims, it is clear that he has failed. 

Therefore, plaintiff shall be granted leave to amend and provide a clearer factual context for his 

claims. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 

amending the complaint, plaintiff is 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). Plaintiff is 

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to 

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended 

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if 

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make 

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

///

///

Case 2:19-cv-01649-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 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

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the 

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply 

with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that this 

action proceeds against the following defendants: Smith, Wong, and Ashe;

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

3. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date 

of service of this order.

Dated: February 13, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01649-KJM-DMC Document 11 Filed 02/13/20 Page 5 of 5