Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06297/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06297-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST L. LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6297 OWW LJO P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILING TO STATE

A CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Doc. 18.)

Plaintiff Earnest L. Lewis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

September 22, 2003. On October 1, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which was

dismissed by this Court on January 15, 2004. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on

February 9, 2004. On March 25, 2005, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint also

for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff filed the Third Amended Complaint

pending before the Court on April 27, 2005. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 6
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

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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Although the Third Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s rights have been violated,

Plaintiff fails to make the nature of those violations clear by alleging specific facts and linking

them to the individuals named in the Complaint. Plaintiff provides only a narrative with vague

allegations that numerous documents were fabricated by numerous individuals, that they

attempted to take his wheelchair away from him during a visit to the infirmary for an injury to his

right arm despite the fact that they were told Plaintiff had to crawl on the floor because he could

not use his wheelchair, that Doctors re-wrote his prescriptions and told him a walker would be

better, that his finger was put in a cast which caused limited use of his right hand and that the

Doctors had no knowledge of Plaintiff’s condition. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Linkage Requirement

As in the prior instances, Plaintiff was informed that in order to state a claim for relief, he

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 6
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

had to link each individual to an act or omission giving rise to a constitutional violation. The

Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights. 

2. Eighth Amendment - Deliberate Indifference

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment

unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference” standard involves an

objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms,

“sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501

U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a “sufficiently culpable state of

mind,” which entails more than mere negligence, but less than conduct undertaken for the very

purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. A prison official does not act in a

deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health or safety.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 6
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

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 Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or

treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v.

County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Here, Plaintiff does not allege sufficient fact giving rise to a claim of deliberate

indifference against any of the named Defendants. In fact, with regard to Plaintiff’s medical care,

Plaintiff states in his Third Amended Complaint that Doctors rewrote prescriptions concerning

his medical devices and that he was given a cast for his finger that hindered use of his entire right

hand. These facts indicate a disagreement with the diagnosis rather than an Eighth Amendment

violation. Further, Plaintiff has been given three opportunities to cure this defect and has failed

to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment

claim for relief. 

3. Retaliation

An allegation of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment right to file a prison

grievance is sufficient to support a claim under Section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283,

1288 (9 Cir. 2003.) "Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation th

entails five elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the

inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

legitimate correctional goal." Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir.2005) (citations

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 07/24/06 Page 4 of 6
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

omitted). 

As in the prior Amended Complaints, Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations concerning

retaliation. According to the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states throughout that

documents were fabricated by prison officials in retaliation for his filing inmate appeals. 

However, other than conclusory allegations of fabrication which, Plaintiff alleges, was for the

purpose of retaliation, Plaintiff provides little to no facts. Thus, the Court cannot make any

determination that Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim for relief. 

4. Other Allegations

As in the prior Amended Complaints, Plaintiff makes numerous allegations but fails to

provide sufficient information that would allow the Court to determine what claim Plaintiff is

trying to make. Plaintiff’s entire Complaint consists of a narrative that details numerous

conversations but provides no basis for any type of constitutional violation or form of relief. The

Court has informed Plaintiff numerous times that it is not the Court’s responsibility to try to

guess what claim Plaintiff may be trying to make. The Court has repeatedly provided Plaintiff

with legal authority that informs him what is needed to state a claim for relief under that law. 

However, for whatever reasons, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the defects pointed out to him

by the Court. Plaintiff has been warned previously that his continued failure to state a claim

would result in the Court’s recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

D. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief

under section 1983. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff should not be granted further leave to

amend as he has had numerous opportunities to cure the defects outlined and has repeatedly

failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its

entirety.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted to the

United States District Court Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District

Court, Eastern District of California. Within THIRTY (30) days after being served with a copy

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 07/24/06 Page 5 of 6
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

of this Report and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed

within TEN (10) court days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. th

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06297-OWW -LJO Document 23 Filed 07/24/06 Page 6 of 6