Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01433/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01433-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP T. RICKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS MEDICALDEPARTMENT,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF EITHER TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR TO

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO

PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO BE

COGNIZABLE

(Doc. 1)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Phillip T. Ricker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and was incarcerated at Corcoran State

Prison at the time the events in his complaint took place. Plaintiff is suing under section 1983 for

the violation of his rights under Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff names Dr. Moon, Dr. Kim, Dr. Dhah,

Dr. Wang, Tellorbes, E. Lopez, Alaape, LaVann, Hicks, Lambert, D. Stinger, and Anderson as

defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states some

cognizable claims. Plaintiff will be ordered to either file an amended complaint that cures the

deficiencies in his non-cognizable claims, or notify the Court that he is willing to voluntarily dismiss

the non-cognizable claims and proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in this order.

I. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

1

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 8
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

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), 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). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual

allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. 

Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from an injury to his right shoulder. Plaintiff contends that

the shoulder causes pain that is so intense that he cannot sleep. Plaintiff alleges that he was cleared

to receive medial treatment from inmate appeals that were granted on four separate occasions. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Moon, Kim, Dhah and Wang were fully aware of Plaintiff’s need

for an MRI and surgery on his right shoulder, but failed to provide the necessary treatment.

On July 5, 2009, Plaintiff informed Defendant Tellorbes that he was in excruciating pain and

he needed to see a doctor. Tellorbes denied Plaintiff’s request. An hour later, Plaintiff yelled man

2

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 8
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

down in his cell and Defendant Anderson made a derogatory remark and left Plaintiff in pain. Thirty

minutes later, Tellorbes returned to the housing unit. Plaintiff’s vitals were taken. Plaintiff alleges

that his vitals were “extremely high” and he should have been seen by a doctor. Instead, Defendant

Hicks refused to admit Plaintiff into the E.R. at the prison.

On July 6, 2009, Plaintiff informed Defendant E. Lopez that he was in excrutiating pain. 

Plaintiff’s vitals were taken again. Defendant Stinger told Lopez that Plaintiff was faking it.

On July 7, 2009, Plaintiff told Defendant LaVann that he was in so much pain that it was

bringing tears to his eyes. Plaintiff was refused treatment. Later that day, Plaintiff told Defendant

Alaape that he was having chest pains. Defendant Lambert came to Plaintiff’s cell and asked

Plaintiff if he was having chest pain. Plaintiff replied “yes.” Stingerthen told Alaape to not provide 

treatment.

III. Discussion

A. Eighth Amendment Claims

Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ failure to provide medical treatment for his excruciating

should pain violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the

imposition of cruel and unusual punishments and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of

dignity, civilized standards, humanity and decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976)

(quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 579 (8th Cir. 1968)). A prison official violates the Eighth

Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) the objective requirement that the deprivation

is “sufficientlyserious”, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quotingWilson v. Seiter, 501

U.S. 294, 298 (1991), and (2) the subjective requirement that the prison official has a “sufficiently

culpable state of mind”, Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298). The objective requirement that the

deprivation be “sufficiently serious” is met where the prison official’s act or omission results in the

denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities”. Id. (quotingRhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). The subjective requirement that the prison official has a “sufficiently

culpable state of mind” is met where the prison official acts with “deliberate indifference” to inmate

health or safety. Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-303). A prison official acts with deliberate

indifference when he/she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”. 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 3 of 8
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

Id. at 837. “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that

a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id.

“[D]eliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury states a cause of action

under § 1983.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on

deficient medical treatment, a plaintiff must show: (1) a serious medical need; and (2) a deliberately

indifferent response by the defendant. Conn v. City of Reno, 572 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009)

(quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). A serious medical need is shown by

alleging that the failure to treat the plaintiff’s condition could result in further significant injury, or

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Id. A deliberately indifferent response by the

defendant is shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical

need and harm caused by the indifference. Id. In order to constitute deliberate indifference, there

must be an objective risk of harm and the defendant must have subjective awareness of that harm. 

Id. However, “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical

condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. 

Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a

prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Isolated occurrences of neglect do not

constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

(9th Cir. 2006); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992); O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920

F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff does not allege anydetails as to how Defendants Moon, Kim, Dhah and Wang failed

to provide medical treatment for his injured shoulder. Plaintiff only provides abstract conclusions

that the doctors were aware of his need for treatment, and did not provide treatment. Plaintiff does

not explain how Moon, Kim, Dhah and Wang were made aware of Plaintiff’s need for treatment--

Plaintiff does not allege whether the doctors personally saw Plaintiff and diagnosed him, whether

Plaintiff informed them through an inmate appeal, or whether Plaintiff merely presumes that they

know because they have access to Plaintiff’s medical files. Nor does Plaintiff provide any details

regarding how they failed to provide treatment. Plaintiff does not allege that they directly refused

a request for treatment, or whether Plaintiff is suing all of the doctors at the prison because none of

4

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 4 of 8
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

them provided any treatment for Plaintiff. It is not clear whether the doctors had a duty to treat

Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s abstract conclusions that each doctor was aware of Plaintiff’s need for treatment

and did not provide treatment is not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference. For example,

liability would not attach if a doctor was aware of a patient’s need for medical treatment but did not

provide treatment because he was not the patient’s doctor and was under the assumption that another

doctor would take care of it. Plaintiff must allege facts that show the each Defendant was aware that

their failure to act would have inflicted wanton and unnecessary pain on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Tellorbes, Anderson, Hicks, Lopez, Stinger,

LaVaan, Alaape, and Lambert are sufficient to support a claim for deliberate indifference to his

medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that he directly informed these Defendants that he was in

excruciating pain and that in response they either ignored or denied his requests for medical

treatment. Plaintiff has alleged facts that demonstrate that these Defendants were both aware of his

serious need for medical treatment and responded with deliberate indifference byignoring or denying

his requests for treatment. Plaintiff states cognizable claims against Defendants Tellorbes,

Anderson, Hicks, Lopez, Stinger, LaVaan, Alaape, and Lambert.

B. Plaintiff’s Exhibits

Plaintiff has attached approximately29 pages of exhibits to his complaint. Plaintiff fails refer

to this exhibits in his complaint or provide an adequate explanation of what the exhibits are and how

they are relevant to his claims. Plaintiff is advised that while exhibits are permissible if incorporated

by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff is advised that under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Plaintiff is only obligated to provide “a short and plain statement of [his] claim”, Plaintiff is not

obligated to prove the allegations in his complaint at this stage. Attaching a large number of exhibits

to a complaint will result in the complaint being dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 8, as it will render the complaint to be neither a “short” nor “plain” statement of

Plaintiff’s claims.

In addition, Plaintiff may not attach exhibits to his complaint for the purpose of using them

as evidence at later stages in litigation. This court will not serve as a storehouse for Plaintiff’s

5

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 5 of 8
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

evidence. Evidence should not be submitted to the court until this action reaches an appropriate

stage in litigation for the submission of evidence, such as in response to a motion for summary

judgment, at trial, or when specifically requested by the court. Further, if and when this action does

reach an appropriate stage in litigation for the submission of evidence, Plaintiff will not be able to

refer to exhibits attached to his complaint as evidence. Evidence must be submitted at the proper

time and under the proper procedures. Attaching exhibits to the complaint is not the proper

procedure for admitting evidence for the purpose of proving Plaintiff’s allegations.

Further, the Court will not permit Plaintiff to rely exclusively on exhibits for the presentation

of the critical facts to his case. Rule 8 requires Plaintiff to provide a “short and plain” statement of

his claims. Plaintiff may not attach a large number of exhibits to his claims with the expectation that

the Court will read the exhibits and extract the necessary factual pieces to construct a cognizable

claim on Plaintiff’s behalf. The burden of presenting the facts of his case in a “short and plain”

manner must be carried by Plaintiff--the Court will not do the work for him. Plaintiff will not be

allowed to dump his medical file on the Court’s lap and expect the Court to figure out what

happened to him. Although the Court will liberally construe Plaintiff’s complaint, sifting through

unidentified medical and prison documents and formulating claims on Plaintiff’s behalf crosses the

line between liberal construction and essentially advocating on Plaintiff’s behalf. To the extent that

the factual deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims are cured by facts revealed in his exhibits but not in the

body of his complaint, Plaintiff is advised that he should file an amended complaint that specifically

alleges those facts instead of relying exhibits to present those facts.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against DefendantsTellorbes,Anderson,Hicks,

Lopez, Stinger, LaVaan, Alaape, and Lambert for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims against any other

defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint

curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49

(9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in 

///

6

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 6 of 8
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

his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot”

complaints).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding only

on the claims identified in this order as cognizable, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing, and

the Court will issue a recommendation for dismissal of the other claims and defendants, and will

forward Plaintiff eight (8) summonses and eight (8) USM-285 forms for completion and return. 

Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of

process.

If Plaintiff opts to amend, his amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Plaintiff must identify how each individual defendant caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional or other federal rights: “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus

on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged

to have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

With respect to exhibits, while they are permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P.

10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In other

words, it is not necessary at this stage to submit evidence to prove the allegations in Plaintiff’s

complaint because at this stage Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true.

Although Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true and that “the pleading

standardRule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’” “a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint. 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987). The amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior

or superceded pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged

7

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 7 of 8
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

in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d

at 567 (citing London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth,

114 F.3d at 1474. In other words, even the claims that were properly stated in the original complaint

must be completely stated again in the amended complaint.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in

this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and wishes to proceed only against Defendants Tellorbes,

Anderson,Hicks,Lopez,Stinger, LaVaan, Alaape, and Lambert for deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 1:09-cv-01433-LJO-GBC Document 9 Filed 01/04/10 Page 8 of 8