Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04251/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04251-3/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 07-4251 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 20, 2007, plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Santa Clara County Jail, a

part of the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections (“DOC”), filed the above-titled

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2007, the Court found that

plaintiff’s allegations that he was receiving inadequate medical care failed to state a

cognizable claim for relief because (1) plaintiff had not alleged facts showing jail officials

had acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and (2) plaintiff had not

named any jail official as a defendant or alleged how any such individual official was

involved in responding, or failing to respond, to his requests for medical attention. 

Accordingly, the Court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to cure the abovenoted pleading deficiencies. 

On March 7, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“AC”) in which he alleges

that after the commencement of his incarceration within the DOC on December 13, 2006, he

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 15 Filed 05/15/08 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

1

Plaintiff asserts that he should not have to wait until that point, as once a person with

his illness has a liver that goes “bad,” it is too late to help him. (AC at 3C:2-8.)

2

submitted several medical request forms and grievances seeking medical attention for a liver

illness he has had since 1997, and that all of his attempts to receive such medical attention

“have been futile.” (AC at 3:17-18.) 

Plaintiff names as defendants several jail officials, with respect to whom he makes the

following allegations concerning their involvement in the denial of adequate medical care:

Dr. Alexander Chyorny, the Chief Medical Doctor at the DOC, is responsible for the

medical department and the others doctors, and does not have procedures in place to ensure

that prisoners’ medical needs are met, especially when complaints are lodged against “his

doctors and medical department.” (AC at 3B:3-7.). 

Lori Horn, R.N., the Head Nurse at the DOC, is responsible for the nurses who

rescheduled plaintiff’s appointments thirteen times; plaintiff was seen only four times and

nothing was done to treat his illness. (AC at 3B:9-16.) 

Dr. John C. Lukrich, Dr. Maria Juarez-Reyes, Dr. Anita Gaddipati, and Dr. G.

Versales all are directly responsible for refusing to diagnose and treat plaintiff’s chronic liver

illness; plaintiff has continuously asked them to provide him with an available treatment for

his illness but they have all refused, saying he must wait until his “liver gets bad.” (AC at

3B:18-27.)1

Correctional Officer Warfield is responsible for getting inmates to a nurse by

announcing the nurse’s presence to inmates, but does not follow proper procedures and

instead requires inmates to stick a medical request form out of their cell doors the night

before the nurse arrives. (AC at 3C:10-23.) 

Edward C. Flores, Chief of Corrections, and Captain D. Sepulveda, Jail Commander,

are responsible for the jail and its staff, and, as a result, are responsible for the health and

well-being of the inmates and proper functioning of the grievance process. (AC at 3C:25-

3D:7.) 

Having reviewed the allegations in the amended complaint, the Court finds plaintiff’s

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 15 Filed 05/15/08 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

claims that defendants Lukrich, Juarez-Reyes, Gaddipati and Versales have acted with

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs are, when liberally construed,

cognizable. 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state cognizable claims for relief against defendants

Chyorny, Horn, Flores and Sepulveda, as plaintiff has not directly linked any of said

defendants to the alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rather, each such

defendant is alleged to be liable solely on the basis of his/her position of authority within the

DOC. A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may not be based on a theory of respondeat superior

liability, however. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly,

plaintiff will be granted leave to amend his complaint to allege, if he can do so, facts linking

each of these four defendants directly to the denial of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. If

plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint, the claims against said defendants will be

dismissed without prejudice and the claims found cognizable herein will be ordered served. 

Further, plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against defendant Warfield. 

The change in procedures instituted by Warfield does not implicate a constitutionally

protected liberty interest, for the reason that such change does not amount to a deprivation of

“real substance.” See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-87 (1995) (holding protected

liberty interest implicated only where deprivation of real substance imposes atypical and

significant hardship on inmate or will inevitably affect duration of inmate’s sentence). 

Consequently, the Court finds amendment of such claim would be futile, and the claim will

be dismissed with prejudice and without further leave to amend. See Janicki Logging Co. v.

Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding leave to amend need not be granted where

amendment constitutes exercise in futility). 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Correctional Officer Warfield is hereby DISMISSED with

prejudice.

2. Plaintiff states cognizable claims for relief against Dr. John C. Lukrich, Dr. Maria

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 15 Filed 05/15/08 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

2

To assist in expediting this matter, plaintiff, prior to the date on which the second

amended complaint is due, should notify the Court if he does not intend to file a second

amended complaint and wishes to proceed only with the claims found cognizable herein.

4

Juarez-Reyes, Dr. Anita Gaddipati and Dr. G. Versales. Those claims will not be ordered

served, however, until the deadline for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint has

passed or plaintiff has informed the Court that he does not intend to file a second amended

complaint. 

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Chyorny, Lori Horn, Edward C. Flores and Captain

D. Sepulveda are hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30) days of the

date this Order is filed, plaintiff may file a SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, using the

court’s form civil rights complaint, a copy of which is provided herewith, in order to cure

the deficiencies noted above. Plaintiff shall complete the form, and include in the caption

both the case number of this action, No. C 07-4251 MMC (PR), and the phrase “SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to amend his first

amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies noted above, he must file a second

amended complaint which includes any claims from the first amended complaint he wishes to

preserve. 

If plaintiff fails to timely file a second amended complaint in conformity with this

Order, the claims that have been dismissed with leave to amend will be dismissed without

prejudice, and the claims found cognizable herein will be ordered served.2

 4. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 15 Filed 05/15/08 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

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-04251-MMC Document 15 Filed 05/15/08 Page 5 of 5