Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02094/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02094-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAKSIM NEYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. VIRK, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-02094 AWI DLB PC

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Maksim Neyman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 17, 2014. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:14-cv-02094-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 7
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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations1

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, California, which is 

where the events giving rise to this action occurred. Plaintiff brings this action against Dr. Virk, 

Dr. Malakkla, and Doe Doctors 1 through 10, for violating his right to medical care under the 

Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In March of 2007, Plaintiff was in an automobile accident. He sustained injuries to his left 

knee and was treated at the U.C. Davis Medical Center. He was told that he would need a total 

patella replacement surgery. Plaintiff did not receive the patella replacement at that time, and he 

was transferred to Corcoran Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). At CSATF, 

 

1

Plaintiff refers to the exhibits attached to his original complaint, and the Court will take those exhibits into 

consideration in reviewing Plaintiff’s allegations in his amended complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-02094-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff was advised by Dr. Smith that he had sustained a serious cartilage injury. In January of 

2009, arthroscopic surgery was performed. (ECF No. 10-1 at 3.) The surgery did not improve his 

pain. (ECF No. 10-1 at 3.) Plaintiff received pain medications and two cortisone injections, and 

an MRI revealed a small meniscal tear. (ECF No. 10-1 at 3.) In August of 2009, a second 

arthroscopic surgery was performed. (ECF No. 1-1 at 21.) Plaintiff was seen for follow-up and 

still experienced pain in his knee. (ECF No. 1-1 at 21.) The two surgeries had no beneficial 

results for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1-1 at 18.)

Plaintiff transferred to Avenal State Prison (“ASP”). On October 17, 2012, surgical 

procedures including a left knee arthroscopy with chondroplasty and arthroscopic lateral release

were performed. (ECF No. 1-1 at 13.) Plaintiff continued to complain of knee pain. While at 

ASP, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Casey. On February 21, 2014, Dr. Casey recommended 

arthroscopic chondroplasty and patellofemoral chondroplasty with possible lateral retinacular 

release. (ECF No. 1-1 at 23.) On May 30, 2014, Dr. Casey performed the recommended surgical 

procedure. (ECF No. 1-1 at 27-31.) Plaintiff was thereafter transferred to Valley State Prison 

(“VSP”). 

On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff had a follow-up visit with Dr. Casey concerning his May 30, 

2014, arthroscopic surgery. (ECF No. 8 at 3.) Plaintiff stated his knee was no better than it was 

before the surgery. Plaintiff was advised that he had a grade III-IV chondromalacia of his patella, 

meaning he was near and to the level of bone at his patellofemoral joint, and this was the root 

cause of his pain. (ECF No. 8 at 3.) Dr. Casey discussed his treatment options which included: 

anti-inflammatory medications; physical therapy; and patellectomy or patellar replacement. (ECF 

No. 8 at 3.) Dr. Casey advised that he did not feel Plaintiff was a candidate for a patellectomy or 

patellar replacement, nor did he recommend performing either procedure at that time. (ECF No. 8 

at 3.) Dr. Casey stated that a joint replacement at Plaintiff’s age would be a bad idea and could 

potentially leave him with a major problem later in life. (ECF No. 8 at 3.) Dr. Casey 

recommended continuing anti-inflammatory medications along with physical therapy and 

scheduling Plaintiff for a follow-up in 4-6 months. (ECF No. 8 at 3.) Dr. Casey stated there was 

nothing further he could do for Plaintiff at that time. (ECF No. 8 at 3-4.) 

Case 1:14-cv-02094-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 7
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

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Rebel, a general orthopedist at Madera 

Community Hospital. (ECF No. 13 at 3-5.) Dr. Rebel reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and 

his complaints of knee pain and recommended patellofemoral arthroplasty. (ECF No. 13 at 4.) 

Dr. Rebel recommended against a patellectomy, stating that “in this modern era, patellofemoral 

arthroplasty would be preferred.” (ECF No. 13 at 4.) Dr. Rebel stated his agreement “with the 

previous orthopedic surgeon that total knee replacement would not be indicated and [he] would 

not recommend it. Most likely [Plaintiff] would not have a good outcome with a total knee 

replacement.” (ECF No. 13 at 5.)

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff was seen by Physician Assistant K. Phanh concerning his 

chronic knee pain. (ECF No. 13 at 2.) P.A. Phanh recommended Plaintiff be referred to an 

orthopedic subspecialist for patellofemoral arthroplasty. (ECF No. 13 at 2.) P.A. Phanh 

recommended against a total knee replacement. (ECF No. 13 at 2.)

Plaintiff states that Dr. Virk on numerous occasions denied him the needed patella 

replacement surgery due to VSP’s policies of not providing surgeries for cost reasons. Plaintiff 

states that Dr. Malakkla likewise denied him the needed surgery for the same reasons. Plaintiff 

further states that unknown Doe Doctors also denied him the needed surgery.

Plaintiff requests immediate patella replacement surgery on his left knee and pain 

management to relieve the severe and continual pain. He asks for monetary compensation in the 

amount of $250,000.00 from each Defendant, and punitive damages in an amount according to 

proof. He also requests medical treatment needed for the rest of his life.

B. Eighth Amendment Claim

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

2012) ), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that 

failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

Case 1:14-cv-02094-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 4 of 7
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

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain 

or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 

(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which 

entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks 

omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

Chronic conditions which cause pain or otherwise require treatment may constitute serious 

medical needs. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). At the pleading stage, 

Plaintiff’s allegation of chronic severe knee pain suffices to satisfy the objective element of an 

Eighth Amendment. Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. 

However, Plaintiff’s allegations do not suffice to satisfy the subjective element. Wilhelm, 

680 F.3d at 1122. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the medical opinions of his various treating 

doctors does not give rise to a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. “A difference of 

opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical professionals - concerning 

what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference.” Snow, 681 F.3d at

987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23 

(citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Thus, any mere disagreement 

between Plaintiff and Defendants does not support a claim for relief. 

Second, Plaintiff’s allegations and exhibits do not support a reasonable inference that 

Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s complaints of pain. The exhibits show 

that Plaintiff has been examined and treated for his chronic knee condition since his car accident in 

2007. Plaintiff has received four surgeries and numerous rounds of physical therapy; he has been 

given anti-inflammatory and pain medications; he has been consistently treated by doctors and 

orthopedic specialists; he has received several MRIs and x-rays; and he has been given various 

accommodations and forms of assistance. According to Plaintiff’s exhibits, every treating doctor 

or specialist has recommended against a total knee replacement because they believe it would do 

Case 1:14-cv-02094-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

more harm than good. Plaintiff’s allegations and exhibits provide no basis for a plausible claim 

that Defendants’ determinations were “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and 

chosen “in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing 

Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

In addition, Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts linking the denial of adequate medical care 

to Defendants Virk, Malakkla, and Doe Doctors 1 to 10. It appears from Plaintiff’s exhibits that 

Defendants may have been involved in Plaintiff’s administrative appeals but this does not

demonstrate the existence of a causal connection between Defendants and Plaintiff’s claimed 

denials of adequate medical care. Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the appeals process and 

responses to his appeals does not suffice to demonstrate that Defendants knew of and disregarded 

Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Peralta, 744 F.3d at 1086-87; see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 

F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (actions in reviewing inmate appeal do not support viable claim 

because there is no separate constitutional entitlement to appeals process).

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Virk, Malakkla, 

and Doe Doctors 1 to 10 do not support a claim for relief under section 1983 for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he 

believes, in good faith, he can cure the identified deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 

1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 

(9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff amends, he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 

unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607.

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under 

section 1983, it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of 

respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. Although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

Case 1:14-cv-02094-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff may file an 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order;

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02094-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 7 of 7