Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00287/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00287-8/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

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:13-cv-00287-LJO-GSA-PC

 

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED ON 

JUNE 24, 2015

(ECF No. 28.)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Curtis Lee Henderson, Sr. (“Plaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 24, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that this 

case be dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 28.) On 

July 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 29.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 30 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 3
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

analysis. However, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the court finds that Plaintiff 

should be allowed one more opportunity to amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies in his 

medical claim. 

Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that he was not provided with 

adequate medical care for injuries arising from an assault. The Magistrate Judge found that 

while Plaintiff demonstrated that he had a serious medical need, he failed to show that any 

individual Defendant acted against him with deliberate indifference. The Magistrate Judge 

found that the deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint were not capable of being cured by 

amendment, and therefore further leave to amend should not be granted.

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the delays in his medical care, and Defendants’ 

interference with his treatment ordered by an outside doctor, caused him to unnecessarily suffer 

extreme pain, constituting deliberate indifference by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he did 

not receive any medical treatment for six months for a broken clavicle that should have been reset, despite his requests.

Plaintiff may be able to state a medical claim. However, to state a claim under § 1983, 

Plaintiff must state what each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff=s 

constitutional or other federal rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must allege facts 

showing that each individual Defendant personally acted, participated in another=s affirmative 

acts, or omitted to perform an act which he or she was legally required to do, causing Plaintiff’s 

deprivation. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (emphasis added). Although 

accepted as true, Plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Plaintiff shall be granted another opportunity to amend the complaint.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 24, 2015, are adopted in part;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, 

with leave to amend;

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 30 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

Second Amended Complaint, signed under penalty of perjury, referring to case number 1:13-

cv-00287-LJO-GSA-PC;

4. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff an amended complaint form;

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this case shall be dismissed for failure 

to state a claim; and

6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00287-LJO-SAB Document 30 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3