Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00780/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00780-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. LOVE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0780 FCD DAD P

vs.

CMO SAHOTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed April 23, 2008, plaintiff’s complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

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. See 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. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

Case 2:08-cv-00780-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 05/30/08 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

2

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

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

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a

complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it

must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421

(1969).

In plaintiff’s original complaint, he named Chief Medical Officer Sahota, Dr.

Moghaddam and Warden Kernan as defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendant Moghaddam

operated on his left finger to drain an infection caused by a hangnail. Plaintiff alleged that during

a follow-up visit with medical personnel he learned that his finger was still infected, the infection

had spread and that he would require a second operation. Plaintiff concluded that defendants

were to blame and requested punitive damages. 

The court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint because the allegations therein

were so vague and conclusory that the court was unable to determine whether the current action

was frivolous or failed to state a claim for relief. The court advised plaintiff that allegations of

Case 2:08-cv-00780-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 05/30/08 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

3

inadequate medical care would not state a cruel and unusual punishment claim cognizable under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the alleged mistreatment rose to the level of “deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs.” The court further advised plaintiff that he was required to allege in

specific terms how each defendant was involved in the denial of his medical care. 

In plaintiff’s amended complaint, he has named Dr. Moghaddam as the sole

defendant. Plaintiff alleges:

On July 25 , 2007, Dr. Moghaddam performed minor surgery on th

my finger, due to my finger being infected. He failed to remove all

of the infection and now I suffer from loss of all sensation in my

finger and stiffness occurs in my hand at different times. A second

surgery had to be performed and also hospitalization because the

infection had started to spread from my finger into my hand.

(Compl. at 3.) In the “Relief” section of the form complaint, asking plaintiff to state briefly what

he wants the court to do for him, plaintiff writes “I would like the court to recognize my claim

and honor it as a very legit claim.” (Id.)

The allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint are so vague and conclusory that

the court is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

relief. The amended complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must

give fair notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim

plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants

engaged in that support his claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the amended complaint must be dismissed. In the

interests of justice, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to pursue this action by filing a second amended complaint, he

is reminded that inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

cognizable under § 1983 unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to

Case 2:08-cv-00780-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 05/30/08 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

4

serious medical needs.” In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be

said that a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must

be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle,

429 U.S. at 105-06). At most, the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint state a claim for

negligence or medical malpractice, not deliberate indifference.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate

how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or

statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The second amended

complaint must allege in specific terms how Dr. Moghaddam was involved in the deprivation of

plaintiff’s rights. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some

affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In addition, if plaintiff files a second amended

complaint, he should clarify what relief he seeks. For example, if plaintiff believes he is entitled

to compensatory or punitive damages, he should state the amount he seeks from the defendant. 

Plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make

his second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule,

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57

(9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the prior pleading no longer

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:08-cv-00780-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 05/30/08 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

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 21, 2008 amended complaint is dismissed;

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint

must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended

Complaint”; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a

civil rights action.

DATED: May 29, 2008.

DAD:9

love0780.14am

Case 2:08-cv-00780-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 05/30/08 Page 5 of 5