Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05936/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05936-0/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN JOE GOMEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES DUDLEY LEE; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-5936 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Steven Joe Gomez, currently an inmate at the California Correctional Institution in

Tehachapi, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint supersedes

the original complaint and is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

His motion for a transfer of venue also is before the court for review. 

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Gomez alleges that defendants refused to give him knee surgery ordered

by an orthopedic surgeon and did not give him pain medications (apparently for knee pain) for

seven months. The defendants are health care manager Dr. Lee, an inmate appeal reviewer, the

warden and an associate warden at Salinas Valley State Prison.

Case 3:06-cv-05936-SI Document 6 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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 which 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. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See 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 (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs violates the Eighth

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 102-04 (1976). Serious medical needs may include dental care needs. See Hunt v.

Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) (dental care important medical need of inmates).

To prove that the response of prison officials to a prisoner's medical needs was constitutionally

deficient, the prisoner must establish (1) a serious medical need and (2) deliberate indifference

to that need by prison officials. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir.

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

Cir. 1997) (en banc). 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

measures to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844 (1994). 

Liberally construed, the complaint states a claim for relief for deliberate indifference to

Gomez's serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment based on

the alleged failure to provide surgery and the alleged failure to provide pain medications for

seven months. Although plaintiff alleges that "defendants" denied him the needed medical care

and does not differentiate among the defendants, it appears that the only defendants that have

Case 3:06-cv-05936-SI Document 6 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

any health care authority are the health care manager for the prison, Dr. Charles Dudley Lee, and

possibly the inmate appeal reviewer, C. Kates. The court will order service of process on them.

The other two defendants, i.e., the warden and associate warden, appear to be included

merely because they are in charge of the prison. There is no respondeat superior liability under

Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions

of an employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal

participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, the warden and associate warden are dismissed without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants

Dr. Lee and C. Kates for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's medical needs. Warden Evans and

associate warden Travers are dismissed without prejudice.

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and a copy of this order upon each

of the following defendants, who allegedly are employed at Salinas Valley State Prison:

- Dr. Charles Dudley Lee

- C. Kates (AGPA)

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than April 27, 2007, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they must so inform the court prior to the date the

motion is due.

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than June 1, 2007. Plaintiff

must bear in mind the following notice and warning regarding summary judgment as he prepares

Case 3:06-cv-05936-SI Document 6 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

his opposition to any summary judgment motion:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they

seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule

56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. [¶] 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants'

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. (See Rand v.

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than June 15, 2007.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

5. 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) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly 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). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility. 

Case 3:06-cv-05936-SI Document 6 Filed 02/08/07 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

7. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

8. The motion to transfer venue is DENIED. (Docket # 2.) This judicial district is

the correct venue for this action as the complaint concerns events that occurred in this judicial

district (in Monterey County) and the defendants appear to reside in this district. See 28 U.S.C.

1391(b). The subsequent transfer of plaintiff to a prison in the Eastern District of California is

irrelevant for purposes of determining venue for an action. Plaintiff also has not shown any

reason for a change of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February_8, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05936-SI Document 6 Filed 02/08/07 Page 5 of 5