Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05960/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05960-0/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

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY SKAINS,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5960 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

DR. KLARICH, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections at Pleasant Valley State Prison, brings this civil rights

action against defendant medical officials employed by the Department of Corrections at

Pleasant Valley. Plaintiff’s claims in this complaint relate to his medical care. Plaintiff names

the following individual defendants: John Klarich, Chief Medical Officer; Jeff Neubarth, M.D.;

Neil Kushner, M.D.; Romeo Ortiz, M.D. 

Plaintiff suffers from pain associated with injuries to his neck and back. 

Plaintiff’s complaint consists of generalized allegations regarding his medical care and specific

allegations as to certain defendants. Plaintiff contends that prior to his transfer to Pleasant

Case 1:04-cv-05960-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 06/13/06 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

2

Valley, he was treated for nerve damage with Elavil. At Pleasant Valley, plaintiff was

prescribed Neurotin. A referral to a neurologist was made by defendant Dr. Kushner on

February 18, 2003, and authorized by defendant Dr. Neubarth on March 10, 2003. Seven

months later, the request for a neurological consult was denied by a medical review committee.

At some point, plaintiff was examined by a neurologist. Plaintiff does not

specify whether this was before his referral or after. Plaintiff specifically alleges that “after the

neurologist examined me he ordered a MRI to be completed. Upon seeing Dr. Ortiz on 12-3-03

he stated that due to institutional procedures (moratorium) he wrote in my file for me to return in

90 days before he would order the MRI.” 

At some point, plaintiff filed an inmate grievance regarding his medical care. The

response to the grievance indicated that plaintiff was prescribed medication for his pain, and that

he was placed on a waiting list for a neurological consultation. Plaintiff contends that the he

was not placed on such a waiting list, as the review committee denied the request for a

consultation. 

Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Ortiz at sick call on an unspecified date. Dr. Ortiz

advised plaintiff that “I had waited too long to complain about my problems.” Plaintiff

explained to Dr. Ortiz the difficulties he has had over the years with medical care in the

Department of Corrections. Dr. Ortiz “told me that I was just getting old and he refused an

orthopedic pillow, mattress, cane and crutches and a medical adjustment.” 

Plaintiff alleges that “after months of correspondence and intervention by Mental

Health staff, I was examined by Dr. Alisei on January 27, 2004.” Plaintiff alleges that this “was

the first time I was actually examined and tested by CDC medical staff.” Plaintiff goes on to

state that on December 2, 2003, an X-ray of his spine was taken. Plaintiff attaches exhibits to his

complaint that indicate numerous instances of medical treatment during his incarceration.

To warrant relief under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must allege and show that

Case 1:04-cv-05960-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 06/13/06 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

3

defendant’s acts or omissions caused the deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. 

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to state a claim under § 1983, a

plaintiff must allege that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at the time the

complained of act was committed; and (2) that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt

v.Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). 

The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required

to do that causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide

medical care to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9

th Cir.

2000). “In order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual

punishment, there must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. 

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to

evaluating whether medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” 

First, a court must examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second,

a court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical

treatment.” Id. at 1132.

Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. The court

finds the allegations in the complaint to be vague. In order to state a claim for relief, plaintiff

Case 1:04-cv-05960-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 06/13/06 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

4

must allege facts indicating that each individual defendant knew of and disregarded a serious risk

to plaintiff’s health, resulting in injury to plaintiff. Vague allegations of insufficient or untimely 

medical care fail to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff must charge each individual defendant with

conduct that constitutes deliberate indifference as that term is identified above. 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

Case 1:04-cv-05960-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 06/13/06 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

5

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint." Failure to

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05960-OWW -WMW Document 7 Filed 06/13/06 Page 5 of 5