Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A states, in relevant part:

(a) Screening. -- The court shall review, before docketing,

if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after

docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or

officer or employee of a government entity.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD L. ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT HOREL, Warden, Pelican Bay

State Prison (PBSP), JEANE WOODFORD,

JOE MCGRATH, RICHARD KIRKLAND, P.T.

SMITH, MARK CASTWELLAW, J. COX, M.J.

NIMROD, A.K. THACKER, DWIGHT W.

WINSLOW, DOCTOR WELTON, D. LANGLOIS,

M.C. SAYRE, M. MCLEAN, LINDA ROWE,

MS. DAVID, and SUE RISENHOOVER,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3759 CW

ORDER SCREENING

PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED

SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Todd Ashker, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison

(PBSP), moves for leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” which

he explains is a request to add a retaliation cause of action to

his supplemental complaint. The Court construes this as a motion

for leave to file a First Amended Supplemental Complaint (FASC). 

The Court screens this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 1 of 8
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

(b) Grounds for dismissal -- On review, the court shall

identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any

portion of the complaint, if the complaint –

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted; . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1915A (a) and (b).

2

BACKGROUND

On October 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a

supplemental complaint (Docket # 59), which Defendants opposed. On

June 18, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file his

supplemental complaint. (Docket # 113). Defendants requested that

the Court screen two of the claims in the supplemental complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On August 14, 2007, the Court

issued an Order Granting Defendants’ Request to Screen Supplemental

Complaint and found one of the two claims at issue to be

cognizable. (Docket # 141). 

On August 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed this motion to file an

FASC. He wishes to add a First Amendment retaliation cause of

action against four named Defendants: (1) Dr. Linda Rowe, doctor at

PBSP; (2) Dr. Michael Sayre, medical chief officer at PBSP; 

(3) Maureen McLean, health care manager at PBSP; and (4) Sue

Risenhoover, a family nurse practitioner at PBSP. 

In his proposed FASC, Plaintiff alleges that in June, 2005,

Dr. Rowe became his primary care provider at PBSP. Plaintiff saw

her in response to his request for renewal of his prescriptions for

Tylenol, Tramadol, and Mylanta Tablets. Dr. Rowe cut his Tylenol

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 2 of 8
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

2

Plaintiff only alleges that the amount was reduced from “twelve”

to “six” per day. The Court assumes Plaintiff means twelve tablets

to six tablets per day.

3

from twelve tablets2 per day to six per day. On September 21,

2005, Plaintiff again saw Dr. Rowe for renewal of his prescriptions

for medication. At this examination, Dr. Rowe was antagonistic and

unprofessional with Plaintiff. She stated that Plaintiff did not

need the Tylenol or Tramadol “for some little arm pain,” and she

“would cut it back” each time she saw him. Dr. Rowe cut

Plaintiff’s Tylenol to four tablets per day. 

Plaintiff alleges that the four Tylenol tablets plus 100

milligrams of Tramadol were not relieving his pain. On October 10,

2005, Plaintiff filed a 602 Appeal complaining about Dr. Rowe’s

actions. He complained that she was incompetent, unprofessional

and antagonistic and violated the terms of his 2002 Settlement

Agreement. On December 28, 2005, Dr. Rowe interviewed Plaintiff

about his 602 appeal. After this interview, Dr. Rowe increased

Plaintiff’s Tylenol to eight tablets per day. She did not mention

the Tramadol.

On December 30, 2005, the medical technician assistant who was

delivering medications informed Plaintiff that his Tramadol was

stopped on an order from Dr. Rowe. On December 31, 2005, and

January 1 and 2, 2006, Plaintiff sent medical requests stating he

was in serious pain and needed to be seen by a doctor. Plaintiff

received a message that Dr. Rowe would not see him. On January 4,

2006, Plaintiff filed another 602 appeal complaining that Dr. Rowe

stopped his Tramadol and refused to see him. 

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 3 of 8
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

On January 9, 2006, Plaintiff’s appeal was granted and the

prescription for Tramadol was renewed on Dr. Friedman’s

recommendation. On January 25, 2006, Dr. Rowe submitted her

written response to Plaintiff’s first appeal, stating that she had

cut his prescription for Tylenol out of concern for his liver and

that Tramadol is only for short-term use. Plaintiff alleges that

Dr. Rowe discontinued his Tramadol on December 30, 2005 in

retaliation for his 602 appeal. When Plaintiff proceeded with his

appeal, Dr. Rowe demanded that Dr. Sayre and Ms. McLean cut off the

Tramadol completely. 

On February 6, 2006, Plaintiff was moved to a different

facility at PBSP and Ms. Risenhoover became Plaintiff’s new primary

care provider. On March 25, 2006, Plaintiff saw Ms. Risenhoover

for the first time and she cut his Tylenol from eight to four

tablets per day, which was inadequate to alleviate his pain. On

April 10, 2006, Dr. Sayre and Ms. McLean “partially granted”

Plaintiff’s 602 appeal at the second level of review, stating that

“you were seen by S. Risenhoover on 3/25/06 to renew your

medications. She renewed your Tramadol . . . you have a new

primary care provider and are being given adequate care for your

medical condition.” On April 16, 2006, Plaintiff sent his 602

appeal to the third level of review. On June 21, 2006, the 602

appeal was denied at the third level. Also, on June 21, 2006, Ms.

Risenhoover informed Plaintiff that Dr. Sayre wanted her to cut off

his Tramadol, but she did not feel comfortable doing this because

Dr. Sayre had never examined him. Ms. Risenhoover renewed

Plaintiff’s Tramadol prescription for sixty days to give Dr. Sayre

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 4 of 8
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

time to examine Plaintiff. 

On August 30, 2006, Plaintiff saw Dr. Sayre. Plaintiff

alleges that this visit was a sham. Dr. Sayre refused to renew

Plaintiff’s “chronos” which were necessary for Plaintiff to have

the use of various physical therapy aids such as his theraband,

theraball and arm brace. Furthermore, on September 27, 2006, Dr.

Sayre ordered that the Tramadol be completely cut off. On March 1,

2007, Plaintiff’s physical therapy sessions were discontinued. 

Plaintiff alleges that these actions were in taken in retaliation

for his exercise of his First Amendment right to challenge the

conditions of his confinement by filing 602 appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard for First Amendment Claim

A claim may be stated under 42 U.S.C § 1983 where a plaintiff

alleges retaliation for the exercise of his or her First Amendment

rights. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274,

283-84 (1976). A plaintiff must establish both that the type of

activity he or she was engaged in was protected by the First

Amendment and that the protected conduct was a substantial or

motivating factor for the alleged retaliatory acts. Id. at 285-87;

Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314- 16 (9th Cir.

1989) (inferring retaliatory motive from timing and nature of

suspensions). A prisoner suing prison officials under § 1983 for

retaliation must further allege that the retaliatory action did not

advance legitimate penological goals, such as preserving

institutional order and discipline. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d

813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527,

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 5 of 8
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

532 (9th Cir. 1985). 

 Prisoners may not be retaliated against for exercising their

right of access to the courts. Franco v. Kelly, 854 F.2d 584, 589

(2nd Cir. 1988) (right to petition government for redress of

grievances guaranteed by First and Fourteenth Amendments). Nor may

prison officials retaliate against a prisoner for using the prison

grievance system, even where there may be no constitutionally

protected right to such a system. Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d

450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (inmate falsely charged with disciplinary

violation after filing grievance). The right to file a grievance

is subsumed under the First Amendment right to petition the

government for redress of grievances, Hines v. Gomez, 853 F. Supp.

329, 333 (N.D. Cal. 1994), and protects both the filing, id., and

content, Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995), of

prison grievances.

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Rowe discontinued his prescription

for Tramadol because he filed a 602 appeal against her. This is

sufficient to state a cognizable First Amendment claim against Dr.

Rowe. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sayre refused to renew his

“chronos” for physical therapy aids and also refused to renew his

pain medication because he filed a 602 appeal challenging the

conditions of his confinement. This is sufficient to allege a

cognizable First Amendment claim against Dr. Sayre. 

However, the only allegation against Ms. McLean is that Dr.

Rowe demanded that she cut off Plaintiff’s Tramadol. This is

insufficient to state a retaliation claim against Ms. McLean. 

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 6 of 8
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 7

The only allegation against Ms. Risenhoover is that she cut

Plaintiff’s Tylenol from eight to four tablets and that she refused

Dr. Sayre’s request to cut off Plaintiff’s Tramadol until Dr. Sayre

had time to examine him. Plaintiff does not allege that Ms.

Risenhoover knew about his 602 appeals or that she cut his Tylenol

in retaliation for doing so. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that

Ms. Risenhoover acted for Plaintiff’s benefit by refusing to follow

Dr. Sayre’s order to cut off Plaintiff’s prescription for Tramadol. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has not plead a cognizable First Amendment

retaliation claim against Ms. Risenhoover. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff's 

FASC contains cognizable claims against Drs. Rowe and Sayre. 

Accordingly, the Court will entertain Plaintiff’s motion to file

those claims. Defendants shall respond to the motion within two

weeks of the date of this Order. Plaintiff may reply one week

thereafter. If Defendants do not oppose the filing of these new

claims, the Court will order service of them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/24/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 7 of 8
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 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASHKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALAMEIDA ET AL et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-03759 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on August 24, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Brendan Kenny

J. Randall Andrada

Andrada & Associates

180 Grand Avenue

Suite 925

Oakland, CA 94612

Todd A. Ashker

#C58191

Pelican Bay State Prison

Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: August 24, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 147 Filed 08/24/07 Page 8 of 8