Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06450/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06450-1/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

JOHNNY ANGEL ROMERO,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6450 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

 AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO FILED SECOND 

 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 

 THIRTY DAYS

RICHARD LARSON, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

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 first amended complaint, filed in response to an earlier order

dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated at

Delano State Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendants Richard Larson and Gary

Weizbrod, medical doctors employed by the Department of Corrections at Delano State Prison. 

Plaintiff’s claim in this complaint is that defendants failed to provide him with adequate

medical care. Plaintiff suffers from cirrhosis of the liver, and the allegations of the complaint

are directed at his efforts to receive treatment for his condition.

The order dismissing the original complaint noted the following. The complaint is set

Case 1:04-cv-06450-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 5
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

forth in a narrative format, much like a journal or log. Plaintiff recounts his activities on various

dates, and refers to the conduct of many individuals. Plaintiff names as defendants Doctor

Larson and Doctor Weizbrod, and “supervisors.” 

The statute under which this action proceeds plainly requires that there be an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have

been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978);

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’

another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does

an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he

is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

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 Cir. 2000). “In th

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.

In the original complaint, plaintiff set forth a litany of complaints regarding the

defendants, but did not charge them with specific conduct that constituted deliberate indifference

as that term is described above. Though difficult to discern from the complaint, plaintiff

appeared to complain that there were delays in his treatment. Plaintiff also appeared to challenge

the level of care that he received. Plaintiff did not, however, challenge the fact of his treatment

Case 1:04-cv-06450-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 5
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

by defendants.

Plaintiff cannot prevail in a section 1983 action where only the quality of treatment is

subject to dispute. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir. 1989). Mere difference of opinion

between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to appropriate medical care does not give rise to a

section 1983 claim. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

The court found the allegations in plaintiff's original complaint to be vague and

conclusory. The court determined that the complaint did 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 was be dismissed. 

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff indicates that the events at issue occurred while

he was housed at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility in Tulare County. Plaintiff’s statement of

claim, in its entirety, follows: “I had complained of my disability (cirrhosis/liver) which it

cramps up badly and weakness, blood etc. I was denied which the M.D.s station for me to call

my family and have them set me up on a schedule to see a regular doctor.” Plaintiff makes no

reference to any of the named defendants. 

Plaintiff is referred to the language in the earlier order. In order to state a claim, Plaintiff

must allege facts indicating that the named defendants engaged in conduct that constitutes

deliberate indifference, as that term is described. At a minimum, Plaintiff must allege facts

indicating that the defendants engaged in some conduct. It is insufficient to name defendants

and complaint about medical care in general. The first amended complaint fails correct the

deficiencies identified in the earlier order. The first amended complaint must therefore be

Case 1:04-cv-06450-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file a second 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

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 first amended complaint is dismissed; and

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

second 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 "Second 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.

Case 1:04-cv-06450-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06450-OWW -WMW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 5 of 5