Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01531/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01531-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK STEVEN JOHANSON,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1531 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

MTA,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at

the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, brings this action against an un-named

Medical Technical Assistant (MTA) employed by the Department of Corrections at Tehachapi.

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that the defendant Medical Technical

Assistant administered a tuberculosis test to plaintiff against his will. Plaintiff alleges that he

“had paperwork in my property stating I was on I.N.H. medication and I brought X-rays of my

chest. I brought above papers to avoid life threatening problems.”

Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide

medical care to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9

th Cir.

Case 1:05-cv-01531-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

2000). “In order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment, there must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. 

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to

evaluating whether medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” 

First, a court must examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second,

a court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical

treatment.” Id. at 1132.

Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant administered a tuberculosis test to plaintiff,

despite the fact that plaintiff was on tuberculosis medication. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts

indicating that defendant cause harm, or acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s health. 

There are no facts alleged indicating that a tuberculosis test caused plaintiff serious injury. 

Assuming that defendant acted with negligence, or even gross negligence, such allegations fails

to state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334

(9th Cir. 1990). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Case 1:05-cv-01531-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, 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). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, 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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint." Failure to

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01531-OWW -WMW Document 5 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 3