Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03899/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03899-1/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 

27 

28 

FILED 

MAY iJ b 2015 

RICHJl ~o W. Wli;;KiNQ CLERK U .. ; OISTRlCT CIJ: · ··r 

NORTHERN DIS; iiCT OF CA;,.J, vi lA 

SAN JOSE 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JASON A. SANDEFUR, ) No. C 14-3899 LHK (PR) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

) LEAVE TO AMEND 

v. ) 

) 

DR. JOE GOLDENSON, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated below, the court dismisses the 

amended complaint with leave to amend. 

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 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). Prose pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696,699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Sandefur899dwla2. wpd 

Case 5:14-cv-03899-LHK Document 8 Filed 05/08/15 Page 1 of 5
1 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

2 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

3 the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

4 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

5 B. Plaintiffs Claims 

6 In the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that he has been stabbed in his left lung. 

7 Plaintiff had chest tube placements because his lung collapsed. Plaintiffs spleen had also been 

8 lacerated, and he had severe hypergranulation and pleurisy, which is chronic pleuritic chest pain. 

9 Plaintiff also had bulging slipped disks in his lower back. Plaintiff claimed that the Jail Health 

10 Services at San Francisco County Jail provided proper pain medication until about three or four 

11 years ago, when the jail implemented a new pain management limit. When plaintiff was arrested 

12 in October 2010, plaintiffs medication dosage was cut from 60 milligrams per day to 30 

13 milligrams per day. At the San Bruno jail, the nurses often assumed that inmates were 

14 "cheeking" or hiding their medications. In May 2013, Nurse Mary Jane thought plaintiffthrew 

15 away a small piece of pain medication. Then, in September 2013, a deputy accused plaintiff of 

16 holding onto his medication. As a result, plaintiff claimed that Jail Health Services discontinued 

17 plaintiffs medication and plaintiff was not receiving adequate pain medication. 

18 The court screened plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that 

19 although it appeared that plaintiff was attempting to raise a claim of deliberate indifference to 

20 serious medical needs, plaintiffs complaint was deficient. Specifically, plaintiff did not link 

21 individual defendants to any action or inaction that gave rise to a reasonable inference of 

22 deliberate indifference. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The 

23 court informed plaintiff that he would need to allege specific facts that would demonstrate that 

24 each named defendant purposefully acted or failed to act knowing that plaintiff faced a 

25 substantial risk of serious harm, and that plaintiff did suffer harm as a result. 

26 In plaintiffs amended complaint, plaintiff states that Nurse Practitioners John Poh, 

27 Nancy Orcutt, and Elizabeth Marlow "have been made aware countless times of my difficulties 

28 with bowel movements, sleep and extreme pain when I yawn, sneeze, cough, etc. -they are 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Sandefur899dwla2. wpd 2 

Case 5:14-cv-03899-LHK Document 8 Filed 05/08/15 Page 2 of 5
completely, unequivocally, deliberately indifferent to the level of wanton infliction of pain." 

2 (Am. Compl. at 4.) However, while specific facts are unnecessary to state a claim for relief if 

3 the claim otherwise gives the defendant fair notice, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 

4 (2007) (citations omitted), the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief 

5 above the speculative level," see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56, (2007) 

6 (citations omitted). In other words, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, a plaintiff must 

7 allege facts that "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

8 for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

9 Plaintiffs claim, as it is currently stated, does not set forth sufficient facts to give rise to 

I 0 a reasonable inference that Nurse Practitioners John Poh, Nancy Orcutt, or Elizabeth Marlow 

11 knew that plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to 

12 take reasonable steps to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Plaintiff 

13 also appears to accuse Nurse Practitioners John Poh, Nancy Orcutt, and Elizabeth Marlow of 

14 prohibiting plaintiff from signing a pain management agreement stating that plaintiff will not 

15 hoard or divert his medication. (Am. Compl. at 4.) However, it is not clear whether Nurse 

16 Practitioners John Poh, Nancy Orcutt, or Elizabeth Marlow has the authority to prevent plaintiff 

17 from making such an agreement, whether such an agreement exists, or what effect any agreement 

18 would have on plaintiffs claim against Nurse Practitioners John Poh, Nancy Orcutt, and 

19 Elizabeth Marlow. Plaintiff does not assert that Nurse Practitioners John Poh, Nancy Orcutt, or 

20 Elizabeth Marlow are refusing to administer pain medication to plaintiff, or that they are 

21 otherwise knowingly disregarding a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. To clarify this 

22 confusion, plaintiff will be given one last opportunity to amend his complaint to clearly state 

23 what Nurse Practitioners John Poh, Nancy Orcutt, and Elizabeth Marlow did or did not do that 

24 gives rise to an inference that plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical need, and that each 

25 defendant knew that plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by 

26 failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. 

27 In the amended complaint, plaintiff also re-alleges that Dr. Joe Goldensen, the Director of 

28 Jail Health Services, is liable as a supervisor because Dr. Goldensen "has repeatedly been made 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.14\Sandefur899dwla2. wpd 3 

Case 5:14-cv-03899-LHK Document 8 Filed 05/08/15 Page 3 of 5
I 

I 

aware of my situation through countless grievances." (Am. Compl. at 5.) The court previously 

2 warned plaintiffthat a supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (I) 

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

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

5 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 

6 2011) ). However, again, plaintiff does nothing more than give conclusory statements without 

7 specifying what Dr. Goldensen did or did not do to demonstrate deliberate indifference. Plaintiff 

8 states that Dr. Goldensen "co-signs on his minions work," but the court is unsure whether 

9 plaintiff is referring to Dr. Goldensen's employees' medical reports, Dr. Goldensen's employees' 

10 review of grievances, or what Dr. Goldensen is "co-signing" and how it is connected to Dr. 

11 Goldensen's alleged wrongful conduct and plaintiffs claimed violation. (Am. Compl. at 3.) 

12 Nonetheless, plaintiff will be given one last opportunity to amend his complaint. 

13 Finally, in the amended complaint, plaintiff appears to allege that the Jail Health Services 

14 is liable under a municipal liability theory. The court previously warned plaintiff that to raise a 

15 claim of municipal liability, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional 

16 right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy 

17 amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional rights; and (4) that the policy is 

18 the moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. School Dist. #40 County of 

19 Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, plaintiff alleges that the Jail Health Services, 

20 as a part of the San Francisco Sheriffs Department, had a policy, i.e., a pain management 

21 agreement/contract. Plaintiffthen alleges that ''they" violated that policy. (Am. Compl. at 5.) 

22 However, municipal liability requires a showing that the local government's policy itself 

23 amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional rights. Plumeau, 130 F.3d at 

24 438. Instead, plaintiffs amended complaint appears to state that while the Jail Health Services 

25 had a policy, the deliberate indifference occurred when employees violated that policy by failing 

26 to abide by the agreement. Stated in that way, plaintiff has not stated a claim against Jail Health 

27 Services or the San Francisco Sheriffs Department under municipal liability. 

28 Accordingly, the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Sandefur899dwla2. wpd 4 

Case 5:14-cv-03899-LHK Document 8 Filed 05/08/15 Page 4 of 5
! 

 . 

I 

 

J 

I 

 

j 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Plaintiff will be give one last opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his amended complaint if 

he can do so in good faith. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaints by 

reference. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows: 

1. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

2. If plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, he shall file a 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The 

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 14-3899 

LHK (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff may 

not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file a second amended 

complaint within thirty days and in accordance with this order will result in a finding that further 

leave to amend would be futile and this action will be dismissed. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaints. 

"[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged 

in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. 

18 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

19 4. It is the plaintiffs responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

20 court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed "Notice 

21 of Change of Address," and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to 

22 do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

23 of Civil Procedure 41 (b). 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: s I~ /2DI) 

I I 

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend 

P:\PRO-SE\LHK\CR.l4\Sandefur899dwla2. wpd 5 

Case 5:14-cv-03899-LHK Document 8 Filed 05/08/15 Page 5 of 5