Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00265/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00265-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON BROTHERTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZUNIGA, et al., 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00265 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Brandon Brotherton (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff filed 

this action on January 11, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Portage County, Ohio. 

Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio 

on February 5, 2016.

On February 24, 2016, the action was transferred to this Court, as the events at issue occurred 

while Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution- Mendota (“FCI Mendota”). 

He names FCI Mendota Warden Rafael Zuniga and the FCI Medical Administrator as Defendants. 

A. SCREENING STANDARD

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in part, 

if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

Case 1:16-cv-00265-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/17/16 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

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts “are 

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt 

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff=s claims must be facially plausible to survive 

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a 

defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of 

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

B. ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at FCI Mendota, where the events at issue took place.

Plaintiff explains that FCI Mendota is a relatively new institution, and he recognizes that it 

“sometimes takes time to get an institution up and fully running.” ECF No. 1-1, at 2. However, he 

contends that proper food and medical care are always required.

Plaintiff contends that the medical care at FCI Mendota is “absolutely and positively 

deplorable,” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1-1, at 3. Plaintiff has no front teeth, 

which impacts his ability to properly chew food. Proper chewing, in turn, impacts his ability to 

digest his food. 

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00265-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/17/16 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

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants couldn’t care less if he is able to chew or properly digest his 

food. There are numerous inmates at FCI Mendota who are missing teeth and who are unable to 

obtain proper dental care, and Plaintiff alleges that Defendants do not care about his dental health.

Plaintiff believes that without Court intervention, Defendants would let all inmates lose their 

teeth.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Linkage

Plaintiff may sue individual prison employees for damages under Bivens, but he must link 

each named defendant to a violation of his constitutional rights; there is no respondeat superior

liability under Bivens. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 

2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010). 

To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that a supervisory Defendant was personally involved in 

the constitutional deprivation, or if there was a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s 

wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See, e.g., Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 

F.2d 1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). 

Defendants Zuniga and the FCI Mendota Medical Administrator are in supervisory positions. 

Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations against them, however, and he does not allege how 

they personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against any Defendant.

2. Eighth Amendment

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference 

to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), 

overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 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, 680 

Case 1:16-cv-00265-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/17/16 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

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). 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 ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d 

at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants do not care about his teeth and that they have not provided 

proper dental care. His allegations, however, are too vague to show that any Defendant “[knew] of 

and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. To 

properly state a claim, Plaintiff must include sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably 

infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The 

sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with 

liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

In other words, Plaintiff must explain what each Defendant did to violate his Eighth 

Amendment rights. His vague allegations are insufficient to state a claim.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff does not state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff has not previously been provided 

with notice of the deficiencies in his claims and the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity 

to file an amended complaint, if he believes, in good faith, he can cure the identified deficiencies. 

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 

(9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff amends, he 

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it 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 

and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the mere theory of respondeat 

superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. 

Case 1:16-cv-00265-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/17/16 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

denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 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).

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

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

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

file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order; 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00265-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 05/17/16 Page 5 of 5