Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00588/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00588-2/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

ERIC V. HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SHERMAN, WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:CV-05-00588-AWI-LJO-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Eric V. Holmes (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

2, 2005.

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

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 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 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

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), citingConley 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 Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at California State PrisonCorcoran, where plaintiff is presently incarcerated. Plaintiff names California Department of

Corrections Director Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden S. Sherman, Dr. Clyve Greaves, Dr. Khamnung

Thirakomen, Appeals Coordinator B. Sullivan, and Correctional Officer John Doe as defendants.

Plaintiff is seeking money damages and an injunction requiring prison officials to send plaintiff to

an outside eye doctor for assessment and treatment of his eye injury. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that on April 18, 2003, defendant Doe prevented plaintiff

from obtaining his prescription seizure medicine. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he suffered

multiple seizures later that day and during a seizure, fell and hit the left side of his face on a blunt

object. Plaintiff sustained a left orbit fracture and it was recommended that plaintiff have corrective

surgery to realign his visual field. On May 27, 2003, non-party Dr. Abramowitz categorized plaintiff

as permanently blind/vision impaired on an Inmate/ParoleeDisabilityVerification form (CDC 1845).

On or around December 2, 2003, plaintiff filed a request for reasonable accommodation,

seeking an update of the disability verification form, solar shield eyeglasses, pain relief, a “blind

stick,” access to a Galileo Reader, assistance with reading, seizure medication, a low bunk chrono,

and assistance with reading the appeal response. Plaintiff’s request was denied by defendant

Greaves. On January 2, 2004, the appeal response was modified to grant plaintiff access to a Galileo

Reader. 

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 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

Plaintiff appealed to the next level of review, where his appeal was denied by defendant

Thirakomen on April 14, 2004. Plaintiff then submitted the appeal to the third and final level of

review, where it was reviewed by defendant Sullivan, who requested that the institution inform the

appeals branch when plaintiff had the electrophysiology test and follow up ophthalmology exam. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to perform the necessary surgery and have failed

to coordinate the surgery. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the delay, he has sustained permanent

damage, including blindness, pain, and double vision. 

C. Plaintiff’s Section 1983 Claims

1. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate

indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett

v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). 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.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may

be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,”

or in the manner “in which prison physicians provide medical care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,

1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment,

the delay must have led to further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd.

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

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to support a finding that plaintiff has a serious medical

need. However, plaintiff’s allegations do not support a finding that the named defendants acted with

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical need. “Deliberate indifference is a high legal

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 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

standard.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be

aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm

exists,’ but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at

837). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not

violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of

Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). With respect to defendant Doe, although

plaintiff alleges that defendant Doe prevented him from obtaining his seizure medication, plaintiff

has not alleged any facts that would support a claim that in doing so, defendant Doe knowingly

disregarded an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health and/or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.

Defendants Thirakomen and Sullivan’s involvement was limited to responding to plaintiff’s

appeal of the denial of his request for a reasonable accommodation. As a general principle, actions

in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability under a § 1983

action. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). In order for plaintiff to pursue

a claim for relief against defendants Thirakomen and Sullivan, plaintiff must allege facts that would

support a claim that defendants “deprived the [plaintiff] of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s

necessities,’” and “‘acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057

(quoting Hallett, 296 F.3d at 744). The court reviewed plaintiff’s allegations and exhibits, and finds

that there is no basis stated upon which to impose liability on defendants Thirakomen and Streeter

for violating plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. 

2. Claim Against Defendants Woodford and Sherman

Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. When the named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation

must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.

Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for

relief under section 1983 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the

defendant either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 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

that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the

constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations

omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards

are broad, some facts must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v.

Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

Defendants Woodford and Sullivan are not mentioned in the statement of plaintiff’s claim.

Because plaintiff has not alleged any facts linking either defendant to an act or omission that rose

to a level of a constitutional violation, plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted under section 1983 against either defendant.

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief may

be granted under section 1983. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in this order.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions complained

of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d

227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved. 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). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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 an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 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

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

will recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00588-AWI-LJO Document 10 Filed 09/19/05 Page 6 of 6