Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-04298/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-04298-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

VINCENT C. BRUCE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL SAYRE, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-4298 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), has filed a pro se

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The original complaint was dismissed with

leave to amend and plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 11.)

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

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. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

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

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

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. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges he was provided inadequate medical care for his shoulder and back

pain.

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. 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. Id. at 1059. 

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

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

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of

comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of

indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she 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. If a prison official should have

been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth

Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison

medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v.

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between

the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678

F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.

2011)); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011); Redman v. County of San

Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). A plaintiff must also show that the

supervisor had the requisite state of mind to establish liability, which turns on the

requirement of the particular claim — and, more specifically, on the state of mind required

by the particular claim — not on a generally applicable concept of supervisory liability. 

Oregon State University Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Ikegbu refused to provide alternative treatment and

decreased pain medication even though plaintiff complained that his shoulder pain was

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

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

becoming worse and interfering with his sleep. It is also alleged that Dr. Ikegbu refused to

refer plaintiff to a specialist even though she was clear that she had no expertise in

diagnosing muscular and skeletal disorders. Plaintiff also alleges that Dr. Adam refused to

provide any treatment for a period of time and refused to provide plaintiff hot and cold

packs. He also states that Dr. Adam refused to refer plaintiff to a specialist. Plaintiff has

presented sufficient allegations to proceed against these defendants.

Plaintiff states that supervisors Sayre, McClean, Zamora, Lewis, and Beard have a

policy to provide inmates with the cheapest level of care possible and they denied his

inmate appeals. Plaintiff provides no other information and these bare allegations are

insufficient to state a claim against supervisor defendants. Moreover, there is no

constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. See Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.

1988); accord Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 565 (1974) (accepting Nebraska system

wherein no provision made for administrative review of disciplinary decisions). 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension (Docket No. 10) is GRANTED and the

amended complaint is deemed timely filed.

2. All defendants are dismissed from this action with prejudice except for Ikegbu

and Adam.

3. The clerk shall issue a summons and Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form

and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons,

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, copies of the amended complaint with

attachments and copies of this order on defendants Dr. Nnenna Ikegbu and Dr. Nancy

Adam at Pelican Bay State Prison.

4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

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

by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming

from the events at issue. If defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved

by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior to the date the summary

judgment motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served on the

plaintiff.

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendants shall also serve,

on a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n.

4 (9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and

Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss

for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement). 

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING,"

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file a motion for summary judgment claiming that plaintiff failed to exhaust his

available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff should take

note of the attached page headed "NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)," which is

provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2003).

d. If defendants wishes to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than

fifteen days after the opposition is served upon them. 

e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

5. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or

defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

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

6

document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

6. 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) is required before the

parties may conduct discovery.

7. 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.” He also 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: May 13, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-04298-NJV Document 12 Filed 05/13/15 Page 6 of 6