Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01515/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01515-2/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY CURTIS ECKMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JACKSON, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv01515 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Tommy Curtis Eckman (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on September 18, 2013. He names Dr. Jackson, 

Practitioner Brown, Practitioner Ogbuehi, Practitioner Tig Brown and Psychiatrist Joyce Brown 

as Defendants.1 

A. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

 

1 On September 27, 2013, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge for all 

purposes.

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/03/14 Page 1 of 6
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

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 

not. Id.

To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in 

the deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations 

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of 

meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in 

Corcoran, California. It is unclear where the events at issue occurred.

Plaintiff’s complaint is brief. He states that Defendant Jackson always comes up with 

excuses to not see him. He explains that it is difficult to get proper medical treatment in prison, 

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/03/14 Page 2 of 6
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

and that on July 16, 2013, Defendant Jackson refused “any follow up without looking at the 

sores.” Compl. 2. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Ogbuehi scheduled a follow up in 60 days, but 

Plaintiff contends that his back will be scarred permanently. Plaintiff contends that the nurses 

refuse “any bandage or triple antibiotic ointment” despite Plaintiff’s requests. He states that the 

sores get worse by the time he sees a doctor.

As for Defendant Brown, Plaintiff simply states that she is no longer at the prison.

Plaintiff attaches a single exhibit entitled, “Notification of Diagnostic Test Results.” The 

notice indicates that the test results were essentially within normal limits and no physician follow 

up was required. The notice was signed by Defendant Jackson on July 16, 2013. 

C. ANALYSIS

1. Pleading Requirements

As explained above, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual 

allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set 

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” 

Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 

conclusions are not. Id.

Moreover, under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the 

participation in the violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons 

v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 

F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability 

may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist some causal 

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/03/14 Page 3 of 6
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

connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th 

Cir. 2013); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 711 F.3d 941, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

Here, Plaintiff’s factual allegations are contained in one paragraph. Although he names 

numerous Defendants, he only discusses Defendants Jackson, Ogbuehi and Practitioner Brown. 

He fails to allege any facts against Defendants Tig Brown and Psychiatrist Brown. It is also 

unclear how Practitioner Brown is connected to the violations at issue given Plaintiff’s statement 

that she is no longer at the prison. Therefore, as to Defendants Tig Brown, Psychiatrist Brown 

and Practitioner Brown, Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to link them to any alleged. 

violation. “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 omitted) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff will be allowed to amend his complaint pursuant to the standards set forth 

below. 

2. Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference

For Eighth Amendment claims arising out of medical care in prison, Plaintiff “must show 

(1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in 

further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the 

defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1122 (citing Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Deliberate indifference 

is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical 

need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 

at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than 

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/03/14 Page 4 of 6
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

ordinary lack of due care. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

In his complaint, Plaintiff appears to fault Defendant Jackson for refusing a follow up

appointment after the July 16, 2013, notice of normal test results. He also believes that 

Defendant Brown is at fault for refusing bandages and antibiotic ointment.

These allegations, however, are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth 

Amendment. Plaintiff provides no facts to determine whether Defendants were deliberately 

indifferent to a serious medical need. 

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff simply disagrees with the treatment provided by 

Defendant Jackson or Defendant Brown’s, his disagreement does not state an Eighth 

Amendment claim. “A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between 

medical professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to 

deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez 

v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, Plaintiff 

“must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the 

circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive 

risk to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

With these standards in mind, Plaintiff will be permitted to amend his complaint.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under section 1983. The Court will provide 

Plaintiff with one opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes in good faith he 

can cure the deficiency identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of 

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/03/14 Page 5 of 6
6

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

this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 

129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted). 

Further, Plaintiff is notified that his amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it 

must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 

220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted under section 1983;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Si gnat ur e- END:

3b142a

Case 1:13-cv-01515-GSA Document 11 Filed 02/03/14 Page 6 of 6