Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02000-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. WALKER, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN J. WOODFORD, ET AL., 

Defendants.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2000 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docket no. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at the

Correctional Training Facility at Soledad (CTF), filed this civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining of inadequate medical care at that facility. Plaintiff seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Venue is proper in this district because the acts

complained of occurred in Monterey County. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Plaintiff complains that he has been denied adequate medical care at CTF for a

host of medical ailments over the past seven years. Specifically, he alleges: he has not

been, and currently is not, receiving prescribed medications; the prescribed medications

which he does receive are not effective in relieving pain and suffering, or are reduced in

frequency or dosage or completely changed or stopped without supporting tests or

examinations; his doctor appointments are delayed or denied in spite of his pain and

suffering; his doctor appointments are inadequate in length and detail, doctors are

uncommunicative and get upset when asked questions, and they take retaliatory action

Case 3:05-cv-02000-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 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

when their medical decisions are appealed; tests and/or examinations to diagnose

complaints are delayed or are not ordered and/or performed; routine tests to monitor

possible side effects of, or damage caused by, prescribed medications are not performed;

CTF medical staff have refused to treat a serious neurological problem which was

diagnosed previously at the University of California Medical Center at San Diego;

referrals to specialists are repeatedly denied and Plaintiff has not been seen by a

neurologist despite complaints of continuing symptoms and pain; accurate, legible

medical records are not maintained; decisions by review panels are not present in

Plaintiff's file; requests to review medical records are ignored; staff refuse to follow

doctor's orders for regular exams; doctors ignore visual evidence of conditions needing

treatment. 

Plaintiff alleges that the failure to address his medical needs adequately amounts

to a violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. He alleges that

he has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to all of his claims. He names

forty-three Defendants, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. 

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

Case 3:05-cv-02000-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 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

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

ANALYSIS

The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to

guarantee the safety of prisoners. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). 

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See 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); Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986). 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. See

McGuckin, 974 F.2d 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.

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104). 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. See id. at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright,

900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990)).

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he 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). In order for deliberate

indifference to be established, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part

of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; Shapley v.

Case 3:05-cv-02000-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 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

1The State of California provides its inmates and parolees the right to appeal

administratively "any departmental decision, action, condition or policy perceived by

those individuals as adversely affecting their welfare." See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 

§ 3084.1(a). It also provides its inmates the right to file administrative appeals alleging

misconduct by correctional officers. See id. § 3084.1(e). In order to exhaust available

administrative remedies within this system, a prisoner must proceed through several

levels of appeal: (1) informal resolution, (2) formal written appeal on a CDC 602 inmate

appeal form, (3) second level appeal to the institution head or designee, and (4) third

level appeal to the Director of the California Department of Corrections. See id.

4

Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff's allegations of a pattern of inadequate medical care

for his chronic medical problems over the past several years states a claim for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. However, Plaintiff cannot proceed with his

claims because not all of the claims had been exhausted through the required levels of

administrative review before Plaintiff filed his action.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996) (PLRA), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that "[n]o action shall be brought

with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by

a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The

exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 n.9 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 50 (2003). An action must be dismissed unless the

prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before he filed suit, even if he

exhausts fully while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th

Cir. 2002). While nonexhaustion under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense, a prisoner's

concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal, so long as no exception to

exhaustion applies. Id. at 119-20. Accordingly, the court may dismiss a claim without

prejudice if it is clear from the record that the prisoner has conceded that he did not

exhaust administrative remedies. See id.1

Case 3:05-cv-02000-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 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

§ 3084.5; Barry v. Ratelle, 985 F. Supp. 1235, 1237 (S.D. Cal. 1997). This satisfies the

administrative remedies exhaustion requirement under § 1997e(a). See id. at 1237-38. 

5

In his complaint Plaintiff alleges five general categories of injury, each one

containing numerous subparts, which constitute Plaintiff's actual claims. For many of the

claims, Plaintiff provides a detailed administrative exhaustion history. For others, there

is little or no history. And for some, he states that the appeal is still "in process." See,

e.g., claims 1(h), 1(I), 2(d), 3(g), 4(d). Accordingly, it appears from the face of the

complaint that Plaintiff has not complied with the exhaustion requirement as to all of his

claims. When a prisoner's civil rights complaint contains both exhausted and

unexhausted claims the Court must determine whether the claims actually are a

constellation of alleged violations amounting to a single constitutional claim. See Lira v.

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 2005). If so, the prisoner must be given leave

to amend his complaint to delete the unexhausted portions of his claim, or to dismiss the

action so that he may exhaust his administrative remedies and then file a new complaint

with all exhausted claims. Id.

Here, Plaintiff is attempting to pursue an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs based on a constellation of alleged injuries

inflicted over a period of years by numerous defendants. Accordingly, because some of

the underlying claims upon which he relies clearly are unexhausted, Plaintiff must be

given leave to amend his complaint to delete the unexhausted portions of his claim or to

dismiss the action so that he may exhaust his administrative remedies and then file a new

complaint with all exhausted claims. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND. Within THIRTY (30) days from the date of this order Plaintiff

shall inform the Court whether he intends to proceed only with his exhausted claims,

which means the unexhausted claims will be dismissed, or whether he intends to exhaust

the unexhausted claims and then file a new complaint with all exhausted claims, which

Case 3:05-cv-02000-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 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

means the action will be dismissed without prejudice as unexhausted. If Plaintiff fails to

comply with this order, the action also will be dismissed without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. (Docket

no. 2.) If Plaintiff files an amended complaint which complies with this order the Court

will review the in forma pauperis application anew.

2. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as

discussed above. Plaintiff shall file an amended to the complaint within thirty days from

the date of this order. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number

used in this order and the words "COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT" on

the first page. Plaintiff's failure to amend or to notify the Court of his intent not to do so

within thirty days will result in the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice and

without further leave to amend. 

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any 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 under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2006 

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02000-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/03/06 Page 6 of 6