Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05574/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05574-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL PAUL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-5574 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE ANSWER;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

TO AMEND COMPLAINT, FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF OR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Docket Nos. 3, 8 & 9)

On November 1, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay

State Prison (“PBSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various PBSP employees. By separate order filed concurrently

herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

To the extent plaintiff may have included these three defendants solely on the basis of

their positions of authority within the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation or at PBSP, the Court further notes that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may

not be based on a theory of respondeat superior liability. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

2

§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that beginning in March 2006 and continuing

thereafter, prison officials and medical staff at PBSP have violated his constitutional rights

and acted negligently in failing to provide him with an MRI and adequate medical care for

severe chronic pain in his right knee, even though a doctor at Sutter Coast Hospital, where

plaintiff underwent surgery on his knee in 2005, has said plaintiff requires an MRI and

further surgery. The Court finds plaintiff’s allegations, liberally construed, state cognizable

claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104 (1976), as well as for negligence, against the following defendants: J. Flowers,

Sue Risenhoover, Dr. Michael Sayre, Joseph Kravitz, Maureen McLean, N. Grannis and R.

Pimental.

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state cognizable claims for relief, however, against

defendants Scott Kernan (Acting Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation), Robert Horel (Warden of PBSP), and C. Scavetta (Associate Warden of

PBSP), as plaintiff has not directly linked any of these defendants to the alleged violation of

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rather, each such defendant is merely named in the

complaint, without any description of his conduct.1

 Accordingly, these defendants will be

dismissed; if plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to add facts linking said defendants

directly to his claims, he may do so as set forth below. 

//

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C. Motion to Amend

On December 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add two

additional defendants. A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course at any

time before a responsive pleading is served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). As no responsive

pleading has yet been served in this case, plaintiff’s motion will be denied as moot and the

Court will deem the amendment to be part of the complaint. 

 In said amendment, plaintiff alleges that P. Penner and W. Murray, both of whom are

correctional officers at PBSP, retaliated against him for filing the instant action when, on

November 26 and November 27, 2007, they failed to respond to his requests to help him

locate his “Certificate of Funds in Prisoner’s Account,” which document plaintiff was

required to send to the court in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis in this

case. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for relief, however, because

plaintiff suffered no harm from either of said defendants’ actions. See Rhodes v. Robinson,

408 F.3d 559, 567-68 & n.11 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding prisoner must allege he suffered harm

in order to state viable retaliation claim). In particular, plaintiff’s “Certificate of Funds in

Prisoner’s Account” was eventually located, it was filed in this case on December 7, 2007,

and plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in an order filed

concurrently herewith. Accordingly, plaintiff’s retaliation claims will be dismissed without

leave to amend. 

D. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional

right to counsel in a civil case such as this. See Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S.

18, 25 (1981). Rather, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court has the power to

“request” that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(1). To date, plaintiff has been able to present his claims in an adequate manner

and there are no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at this time. 

Should the circumstances of the case materially change, the Court may reconsider plaintiff’s

request sua sponte.

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

E. Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff has filed a motion by which he asks the Court to immediately order PBSP to

send him for an MRI and to replace his right knee brace, which brace defendant Risenhoover

allegedly took from plaintiff upon determining plaintiff no longer needed it in order to walk. 

Plaintiff, however, has neither complied with the notice requirement for issuance a

preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, nor has he certified the reasons for his

failure to provide such notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1), (b)(1). Accordingly, the motion

will be denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint, for appointment of counsel, and for a

preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order are hereby DENIED. (Docket Nos. 3,

8 & 9.)

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants P. Penner and W. Murray are hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Kernan, Horel and Scavetta are hereby

DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed,

plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT, using the court’s form civil rights

complaint, in order to cure the pleading deficiencies as to these defendants, as noted above. 

A copy of the form is provided herewith. Plaintiff shall complete the form and include in the

caption both the case number of this action, No. C 07-5574 MMC (PR), and the phrase

“AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

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

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the

claims against Kernan, Horel and Scavetta will be dismissed.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall

serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint in this matter, all attachments

thereto, and a copy of this order upon J. Flowers, Sue Risenhoover, Dr. Michael Sayre,

Joseph Kravitz, Maureen McLean and R. Pimental, all at PBSP, and upon N. Grannis,

Chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch, at the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation in Sacramento, California. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the

complaint and this order to the California Attorney General’s Office.

5. The court has established a Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program under which

prisoner civil rights cases may be referred to a neutral Magistrate Judge for mediation. The

Court finds the instant matter suitable for mediation proceedings following service of the

summons and complaint on defendants. Accordingly, defendants shall file an answer

within sixty days of the date this order is filed, at which time the Court will refer the instant

action for mediation under the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. 

6. All communications by plaintiff with the Court must be served on defendants, or

defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to defendants or defendants’ counsel.

7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the

parties may conduct discovery.

8. 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 for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

7. Extensions of time are not favored, although reasonable extensions will be granted. 

Moreover, the party making the motion for an extension of time is not relieved from his or

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

her duty to comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made such motion. 

Rather, the party making the motion must meet the deadlines set by the court unless and until

an order addressing the motion for an extension of time is received. Any motion for an

extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought to be extended.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05574-MMC Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 6 of 6