Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01197/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Dumbrique01197_dwlta.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD R. DUMBRIQUE,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

STEVE NAKAMURA, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-01197 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Pelican Bay State Prison

(“PBSP”) in Soledad, filed the instant civil rights action in pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against PBSP prison officials for unconstitutional acts. Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate written order. Plaintiff

alleges that he has administratively exhausted all his claims. 

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

Case 4:10-cv-01197-PJH Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Dumbrique01197_dwlta.wpd 2

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 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that PBSP medical officials have subjected him to cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment by their deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff claims that while he was housed in California State

Prison - Corcoran (“CSP”), he suffered a “left inguinal hernia.” (Compl. 9.) CSP

medical officials had recommended and approved surgery for his condition when Plaintiff

became subject to transfer to another prison. Plaintiff was advised that it could take six

months to a year to receive surgery if he remained at CSP or he could receive the surgery

at the next prison. (Id. at 10.) It appears that Plaintiff opted for the transfer, and he was

transferred to PBSP on April 1, 2009. 

On April 2, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a Health Care Service Request for to see a

doctor about his left inguinal hernia, which continued to cause problems for him. (Id.) 

From that time until June 15, 2009, Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate medical

attention for his worsening hernia, culminating with an emergency surgery on June 15,

2009, for “acute incarcerated left inguinal hernia” at Sutter Coast Hospital. (Id. at 16.) 

Plaintiff alleges that even after his discharge from the hospital, PBSP medial officials

continued to provide inadequate medical attention by intentionally interfering with the

post-operative pain management prescribed by the surgeon. (Id. at 17-18.) Liberally

Case 4:10-cv-01197-PJH Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Dumbrique01197_dwlta.wpd 3

construed, Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claims are cognizable under § 1983. 

Plaintiff’s second claim is that Defendants subjected him to negligent medical care

and is liable under the California Tort Claims Act. (Compl. 24.) As a condition

precedent to suit against a public entity or its employee, the California Tort Claims Act

(“CTCA”) requires that the claim be presented to the State Claims Board (“Board”)

within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 911.2,

945.4, 945.6(a)(1), 950.2. Thereafter, a civil suit against a public entity must then be filed

within six months of the Board’s rejection of the claim. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 913,

945.6(a)(1). Plaintiff has failed to plead compliance with the notice requirement of the 

CTCA. Accordingly, the state law claims will be dismissed with leave to amend to plead

compliance with the CTCA notice requirement. 

C. Supervisor Liability

Plaintiff claims that Defendants Michael Sayre, Francisco Jacquez, Matthew Cate,

M. Nimrod and Clark Kelso, as officials in supervisorial positions, are responsible for

maintaining a policy or custom with respect to certain medical decision, e.g., to deny all

recommendations for surgery to repair inguinal hernias and to limit the amount of pain

medication. (Compl. 11, 19-20.) However, Plaintiff’s claims are insufficient as he fails to

show how these Defendants were personally involved in the deprivation of his

constitutional right. 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. 

Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation

omitted). A supervisor therefore generally “is only liable for constitutional violations of

his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989). Plaintiff makes no factual allegations showing that these Defendants

personally participated in or directed the alleged violations other than the conclusory

statement that these Defendants are maintaining a policy or custom with respect to

Case 4:10-cv-01197-PJH Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Dumbrique01197_dwlta.wpd 4

medical treatment. Accordingly, the claims against Defendants Michael Sayre, Francisco

Jacquez, Matthew Cate, M. Nimrod and Clark Kelso are DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants Michael Sayre, Francisco Jacquez, Matthew Cate, M. Nimrod 

and Clark Kelso are DISMISSED from this action as all claims against them have been

dismissed. The Clerk shall terminate these defendants from the docket. 

2. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty (30) days

from the date this order is filed for Plaintiff to plead compliance with the CTCA notice

requirement with respect to his second cause of action. The amended complaint must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (10-01197 JF (PR)) and the

words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended

complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in his

amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes

to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not

incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 

In the alternative, Plaintiff may file notice within thirty (30) days that he chooses

to sever the state tort claims from the complaint and proceed solely with the Eighth

Amendment medical claims. 

Failure to file such notice or to file an amended complaint in the time

provided will result in the dismissal without prejudice of the state tort claims from

this action. The matter will then proceed solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

medical claims. 

 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.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a

timely fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in

Case 4:10-cv-01197-PJH Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 Page 4 of 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

Order of Service; Directing Ds to file Disp. Motion

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\CR.10\Dumbrique01197_dwlta.wpd 5

the dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

6/14/10

Case 4:10-cv-01197-PJH Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 Page 5 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD R DUMBRIQUE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STEVE NAKAMURA, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case Number: CV10-01197 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Edward R. Dumbrique P27237

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

SHV C3-112

Crescent City, CA 95532

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

6/29/10

6/29/10

Case 4:10-cv-01197-PJH Document 12 Filed 06/29/10 Page 6 of 6