Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02402/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02402-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 16-cv-02402 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

1

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON STONEBRAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOY KICK, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02402 RMW (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a California state pretrial detainee, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the complaint with 

leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in 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 that 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro 

Case 5:16-cv-02402-RMW Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-02402 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

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

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that in February 2016, he had a phone conversation with 

Nurse Herhinder Dhanoa regarding an eye examination. Nurse Joy Kick then examined plaintiff’s 

eyes, and told him that his eyes were “really bad.” Plaintiff told both nurses that he was 

experiencing headaches, migraines, felt fatigued, had pain in his eyes, and was seeing black spots. 

Plaintiff alleges that both nurses failed to provide pain relief medication and failed to consult a 

physician. Three days later, Nurse Joy Kick told plaintiff that she consulted with Dr. Dennis 

McBride, who would not provide plaintiff with pain medication, and informed plaintiff to buy 

Ibuprofen from the commissary. On April 22, 2016, plaintiff sent a grievance to Health 

Administrator Sam Rosales, but Sam Rosales did not take any action. Plaintiff finally alleges that 

Contra Costa County has an unofficial policy of not providing its inmates with pain relief.

It appears that plaintiff is attempting to raise the claim that defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), 

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

1997) (en banc). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two 

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response 

to that need. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. As currently, pled, plaintiff has not set forth facts 

Case 5:16-cv-02402-RMW Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-02402 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sufficient to support a plausible claim that defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his 

serious medical needs. 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 steps 

to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. Here, there are no facts to show that any 

defendant was aware that the failure to prescribe pain medication would create a substantial risk of 

serious harm to plaintiff. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend if plaintiff 

believes in good faith that he can state a cognizable claim. 

In addition, plaintiff is reminded that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 

No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (“PLRA”), amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o 

action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other 

Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). An action must be 

dismissed unless the prisoner exhausted his available administrative remedies before he or she 

filed suit, even if the prisoner fully exhausts while the suit is pending. McKinney v. Carey, 311 

F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(where administrative remedies are not exhausted before the prisoner sends his complaint to the 

court it will be dismissed even if exhaustion is completed by the time the complaint is filed). 

The court notes that here, plaintiff submitted an informal grievance on April 11, 2016, and 

then a first formal grievance to Health Administrator Sam Rosales on April 22, 2016. Normally, 

an inmate must submit his first formal level grievance to a deputy. It does not appear that plaintiff 

should have submitted his grievance to Health Administrator Sam Rosales for processing. 

Moreover, plaintiff submitted this federal civil rights complaint a mere four days after he 

submitted his first formal grievance before asserting in this complaint that he received no response 

Case 5:16-cv-02402-RMW Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-02402 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

from Health Administrator Sam Rosales. The court notes that inmates are not required to 

specifically plead or prove proper exhaustion in their complaints. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 

199, 204, 215-17 (2007). The court also recognizes that the Martinez Detention Facility has a 

grievance policy in place that sets forth the grievance process. If plaintiff believes that he has 

indeed properly exhausted all available remedies as required by the PLRA, he may file an 

amended complaint to correct the deficiencies listed in the previous paragraph. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows:

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. If plaintiff believes he can 

cure the above-mentioned deficiencies in good faith, he must file an amended complaint within 

twenty-eight days from the date this order is filed. The amended complaint must include the 

caption and civil case number used in this order (C 16-2402 RMW (PR)) and the words 

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file an amended complaint within twentyeight days and in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this case. 

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in 

the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

3. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of 

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

RONALD M. WHYTE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

July 26, 2016

Case 5:16-cv-02402-RMW Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 Page 4 of 4