Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00734/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00734-2/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv0734-Dismiss FAC.wpd -1- 11cv0734 JAH (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN K. LOCKE,

CDCR #T-74574

Civil No. 11cv0734 JAH (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b)

vs.

JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2;

GEORGE A. NEOTTI; MATTHEW

CATE; JOHN DOE 3,

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 8, 2011, Marvin Locke (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility located in San Diego, and proceeding pro se, filed a

civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On August 15, 2011, the

Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for

failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b). See Aug. 15, 2011

Order at 7. However, Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to

correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On September 23, 2011,

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

Case 3:11-cv-00734-JAH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/21/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv0734-Dismiss FAC.wpd -2- 11cv0734 JAH (PCL)

II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) AND 1915A

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s amendments

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP

and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of,

sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions

of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after

docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court

must sua sponte dismiss any prisoner civil action and all other IFP complaints, or any portions

thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from

defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

446 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. However, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing an IFP or prisoner’s suit

make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the Complaint be served by the

U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits,

but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing

§ 1915A). 

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). Here, however, even

presuming Plaintiff’s allegations true, the Court finds his Complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b); Lopez, 203 F.3d at

1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446, n.1.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00734-JAH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/21/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv0734-Dismiss FAC.wpd -3- 11cv0734 JAH (PCL)

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) the conduct he complains

of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that conduct violated a

right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Humphries v. County of Los

Angeles, 554 F.3d 1170, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)).

B. Waiver of Defendants

In the Court’s previous Order, Plaintiff was informed that any Defendants not renamed

or claims not re-alleged in his Amended Complaint would be deemed to have been waived.

See Aug. 15, 2011 Order at 7 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). Plaintiff

has filed his First Amended Complaint but he no longer names George Neotti or Matthew Cate

as Defendants. See FAC at 1-2. Thus, Defendants Neotti and Cate are DISMISSED from this

action. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate these Defendants from the docket.

B. Inadequate medical care claims

Plaintiff claims that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants failed

to provide immediate medical care to his serious medical needs. See FAC at 3-5. In order to

assert a claim for inadequate medical care, Plaintiff must allege facts which are sufficient to

show that each person sued was “deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.” Helling

v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32 (1993); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Prison

officials must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to Plaintiff’s pain or medical needs; neither

an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care, nor mere negligence or medical

malpractice constitutes a constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. 

Thus, to state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show both: (1) an

objectively “serious” medical need, i.e., one that a reasonable doctor would think worthy of

comment, one which significantly affects his daily activities, or one which is chronic and

accompanied by substantial pain, see Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994);

and (2) a subjective, and “sufficiently culpable” state of mind on the part of each individual

Defendant. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302 (1991). 

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00734-JAH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/21/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv0734-Dismiss FAC.wpd -4- 11cv0734 JAH (PCL)

Plaintiff claims that he was suffering from “intense stomach pain” on April 22, 2010. 

FAC at 3. A correctional officer called for “medical emergency” and an “A.T.V. (emergency

vehicle).” Id. Jane Doe #1 arrived and “took Plaintiff’s vital signs” and said she would put

Plaintiff on a list to be examined by a Doctor. Id. Later that evening, Plaintiff woke again with

“intense pain,” and again the emergency medical team was called. Id. Jane Doe #2 arrived and

took his vital signs. Id. Even though Plaintiff told her he was in “excruciating pain,” Jane Doe

#2 indicated that due to his vital signs being “good,” there was nothing wrong with him and it

was probably “just something he ate.” Id.. The next morning Plaintiff went to the medical clinic

where he was examined, given x-rays and had blood taken for testing. Id. On April 25, 2010,

Plaintiff had surgery to remove kidney stones. Id.

A mere “difference of medical opinion” between a prisoner and his physicians concerning

the appropriate course of treatment is “insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate

indifference.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff’s facts

show that there was a disagreement in the diagnosis and in fact, he was given medical treatment

within twenty four hours of the time he first complained of pain. The facts he alleges describes

medical personnel coming to his cell, examining him and three days later he was given surgery.

Inadequate treatment due to malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not amount to a

constitutional violation. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334

(9th Cir. 1990). 

Once again, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts from which the Court could find that

Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s inadequate medical care claims are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted. 

For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint must be

dismissed sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at

446 n.1.

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00734-JAH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/21/11 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\JAH\11cv0734-Dismiss FAC.wpd -5- 11cv0734 JAH (PCL)

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants George A. Neotti and Matthew Cate are DISMISSED from this action.

See King, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(2) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing

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

§ 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is further GRANTED thirty (30) days leave from the date this

Order is filed in which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of

pleading noted above. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to his previous pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 15.1. Defendants not named and all

claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

(3) The Clerk of Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court approved form § 1983

complaint.

DATED: _11-21-11__________ __________________________________________

 HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:11-cv-00734-JAH-PCL Document 7 Filed 11/21/11 Page 5 of 5