Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01505/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01505-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH WAYNE PARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY ROLFING, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1505 CKD P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 29, 2015, his original complaint was dismissed 

because it was unclear whether plaintiff had exhausted administrative remedies as to any of his 

claims, and plaintiff was granted leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) On September 24, 2015, his First 

Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he was again granted leave to 

amend. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) is now before the court

for screening. (ECF No. 24.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s claims concern his medical treatment at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) for 

an eye infection that created a cyst under plaintiff’s facial prosthesis, a condition that eventually 

required surgery. The allegations span 2013 and 2014 and involve several medical defendants.

Case 2:15-cv-01505-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 05/25/16 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

27

28

2

In September 2013, plaintiff’s primary care provider Dr. Rolfing prescribed antibiotics for 

plaintiff’s eye infection for a 10-day period, then for another 10-day period when the infection 

continued. (SAC at 3.) Plaintiff requested an x-ray, which he did not receive. (Id.) By early 

November, the infection had not abated. (Id.) On November 7, 2013, Rolfing and defendant 

Nurse Clark ordered stronger antibiotics for plaintiff. (Id.) That night, plaintiff “started to feel 

the swelling at the base of my eye socket and the prosthetic implant. I felt a hole approximately 

1/4” in diameter.” (Id.) Plaintiff filled out a health care request form “and stated my discovery 

and the necessity for surgical repair.” (Id.) 

On November 10, 2013, plaintiff was examined by Rolfing and a nurse, defendant Clark, 

in response to his health care request. (Id. at 5.) They did not take a culture of the infection or 

order an x-ray. (Id.) “The infection had formed a cyst, which burst on November 15, 2013 while 

I washed my face. Between November 10, 2013 and November 2015, the intensity of pressure, 

pain, and a pushing sensation behind the prosthetic . . . grew into a barely endurable condition.” 

(Id. at 4.) At some point before leaving HDSP on November 30, 2013, Rolfing left orders for 

plaintiff to see an Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Specialist (“ENT”) and to receive Tylenol with 

codeine for the pain caused by the broken prosthetic. (Id.) The request for plaintiff to see an 

ENT was marked “Routine.” (Id.) 

Defendant Schmidt took over as plaintiff’s primary care provider on December 1, 2013. 

(Id. at 6.) On December 4, 2013, plaintiff submitted a CDCR 602 health care appeal requesting 

immediate and sufficient medical care and treatment: X-rays to 

determine if the prosthesis has broken or the screws have been 

pulled loose by the extreme pressure of the infection, which erupted 

with pus and blood. My facial area (rt side) has grown continually 

worse. The chronic pain is such that I cannot sleep, eating is 

extremely difficult. . . . I was told pain medication was being 

prescribed, however, I have yet to receive any. . . I’ve had this 

progressively worsening infection for over 3 months now.

(Id. at 27-28.) After his face erupted with pus and blood, plaintiff continued, “Dr. Rohlfing . . . 

advised me that there wasn’t anything he (Medical) could do about it, just send me some 

antibiotics and see if they do the job.” (Id. at 28.)

////

Case 2:15-cv-01505-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 05/25/16 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

27

28

3

On December 11, 2013, plaintiff underwent a CT scan, and Schmidt reviewed the result 

with him. (Id. at 7.) After examining the hole in his prosthesis and his facial swelling, she 

submitted an “urgent” request for plaintiff to see the ENT. (Id.) Schmidt ordered Tylenol with 

codeine for plaintiff and conducted a swab culture of the fluids from the cyst. (Id.) 

On December 13, 2013, defendant Garbutt, a Health Care Appeals Registered Nurse, 

rejected plaintiff’s request for emergency processing of his medical appeal, stating that plaintiff’s 

complaint did not “warrant emergency/expedited processing.” (Id. at 32.)

On January 9, 2014, plaintiff was taken to the prison hospital for treatment. (Id.) His 

infection was discovered to be an antibiotic-resistant staph infection. (Id.) During his hospital 

stay, “the infection was reduced to the point that [plaintiff] was able to be taken to U.C. Davis” to 

see a plastic surgeon and another medical specialist. (Id.) On March 5, 2014, plaintiff underwent 

another CT scan. (Id. at 8.) 

In March 2014, defendant Miranda became plaintiff’s primary care provider. (Id. at 9.) 

Defendant Medina, a nurse, joined Miranda in April 2014. (Id.) When plaintiff’s ibuprofen 

prescription ran out, he submitted multiple requests for refills. (Id.) Medina denied the refills, 

saying plaintiff had been scheduled for surgery; however, surgery had not yet been scheduled. 

(Id.) Plaintiff argued with Medina in subsequent visits and was “removed for being 

uncooperative.” (Id.) His pain levels rose to an “unendurable” level, causing him to become 

unconscious. (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff asserts that Miranda and Medina showed deliberate 

indifference to his pain and suffering by denying him needed pain medication despite multiple 

requests. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff’s severe pain continued until mid-May 2014, when ibuprofen was 

ordered for plaintiff; however, it did not “provide the levels of relief needed for proper 

functioning.” (Id.) 

Documents attached to the complaint indicate that, in June 2014, plaintiff had a preoperative evaluation at UC Davis Health Systems; had a 3-D CT scan; was evaluated by his 

primary care physician and agreed to his treatment plan; and underwent surgery at UC Davis 

Health to remove the implant and repair his facial wound. (Id. at 21.) He was discharged to 

HDSP “in stable condition” and received follow-up care, including pain medication. (Id. at 21-

Case 2:15-cv-01505-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 05/25/16 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

27

28

4

22.) Plaintiff’s claims against additional defendants concern the inmate appeals process. (See id.

at 24.)

Liberally construing plaintiff’s pro se pleading, the undersigned finds it states Eighth 

Amendment claims against defendants Rolfing, Schmidt, Miranda, and Medina for deliberate 

indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim 

against remaining defendants Clark, Garbutt, Barron, Lee, and Mahoney1, as his allegations as to 

these defendants at most amount to negligence or a dispute about the proper course of treatment. 

However, plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend the complaint.

III. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff will be given 30 days from the date of service of this order to amend his 

complaint to cure the deficiencies set forth above. Plaintiff is not required to file an amended 

complaint, but failure to do so will be construed as plaintiff’s consent to dismiss defendants 

Clark, Garbutt, Barron, Lee, and Mahoney with prejudice.

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 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 claims against defendants Clark, Garbutt, Barron, Lee, and Mahoney are 

dismissed with leave to amend; 

2. If plaintiff elects to amend, any amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; 

////

 

1 Defendants Dorothy Swingle and Redding Eye Clinic were named in the original complaint, but 

not the SAC.

Case 2:15-cv-01505-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 05/25/16 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

27

28

5

3. If plaintiff elects to amend, the Amended Complaint shall be filed no more than thirty 

days from the date of this order; and

4. Upon the filing of an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor, the 

court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants. 

Dated: May 25, 2016

2 / park1505.SAC

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01505-KJM-CKD Document 28 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 5