Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03430/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03430-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GUY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03430-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 

Case 3:16-cv-03430-JD Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied medical treatment. Deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 

1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 

1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an 

examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant’s response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in 

further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of 

an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or 

treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily 

activities, or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a 

prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a 

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate 

it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but 

Case 3:16-cv-03430-JD Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

also “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, 

but did not actually know, the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how 

severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference 

of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not 

give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). In 

addition “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical 

indifference.... [Prisoner] would have no claim for deliberate medical indifference unless the 

denial was harmful.” Shapely v. Nevada Bd. Of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th 

Cir. 1985). 

Plaintiff states that he has Hepatitis C and was provided treatment for three weeks, but then 

test results stated he was negative and he was denied medication and treatment for the past seven 

months. While plaintiff’s claim of lack of treatment presents a cognizable claim, he has failed to 

identify a specific defendant who denied his treatment. The complaint is dismissed with leave to 

amend. Plaintiff should provide more information regarding the specific defendants who denied 

his medication and treatment and identify them by name.

Plaintiff is cautioned about only naming supervisors who did not treat him. “In a § 1983 

suit or a Bivens action - where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants - the term 

‘supervisory liability’ is a misnomer. Absent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or 

her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677 

(finding under Twombly, and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that complainantdetainee in a Bivens action failed to plead sufficient facts “plausibly showing” that top federal 

officials “purposely adopted a policy of classifying post-September-11 detainees as ‘of high 

interest’ because of their race, religion, or national origin” over more likely and nondiscriminatory explanations). 

A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in 

the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's 

wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)). A plaintiff must also 

Case 3:16-cv-03430-JD Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

show that the supervisor had the requisite state of mind to establish liability, which turns on the 

requirement of the particular claim - and, more specifically, on the state of mind required by the 

particular claim - not on a generally applicable concept of supervisory liability. Oregon State 

University Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2012). 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

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

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03430-JD Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GUY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03430-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 29, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

William Guy ID: C-53829

Salinas Valley State Prison

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: September 29, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:16-cv-03430-JD Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 5