Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00961-0/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

DAVID KNAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIRK, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00961 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff David Knapp (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 

25, 2015. He names Valley State Prison (“VSP”) Chief Medical Executive Pat Virk, VSP Nurse 

Practitioners Patricia Johnson and L. Stolfus, VSP Doctor J. Meisser-Frisk and California 

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) Doctor K. Lee CDCR as Defendants.

1

A. SCREENING STANDARD

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 

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). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on July 6, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 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

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). 

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). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

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

U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at VSP. The events at issue occurred while Plaintiff was 

incarcerated at VSP and CSATF.

Claim One

Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from excruciating pain as a result of rheumatoid arthritis, 

osteoporosis, and severe herniated cervical discs at L1-2 and L2-3. Since January of 2006, he 

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 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

3

must be heavily medicated to control the pain. Defendant Lee, Plaintiff’s primary care provider 

while he was at CSATF, was aware of Plaintiff’s medical condition, agreed with the diagnoses 

made by prior physicians, and acknowledged his pain and suffering. However, despite being 

aware that Plaintiff suffered greatly when he went without his medication, Defendant Lee refused 

to ensure that Plaintiff had current prescriptions for his medications. On numerous occasions, he 

informed Plaintiff that medications which were working were now non-formulary and would not 

be continued.

Additionally, Defendant Lee “on numerous occasions subjected petitioner to hostility and

abuse in what can only be terms as retaliation for petitioner’s legal efforts to secure the proper

medication and treatment that is constitutionally guaranteed him.” ECF No. 1, at 6. The

retaliatory actions taken against Plaintiff included withholding his medications for weeks at a 

time, and forcing him to wait outside the medical clinic for hours in inclement weather, only to be 

told that his medical file had not been retrieved and would not be retrieved, forcing Plaintiff to be 

put off for several weeks, with that pattern repeating itself.

Claim Two

Plaintiff alleges that since his transfer from CSATF, he went to Mule Creek State Prison 

and then to VSP. He alleges that he has suffered the same, or greater, medical indifference at the 

hands of VSP staff.

On February 20, 2015, Defendant Meissner-Frank told Plaintiff that he did not have Valley 

Fever. Defendant Stolfus previously told Plaintiff that he did not have Valley Fever on August 8, 

2014. Plaintiff alleges that both Defendants Meissner-Frank and Stolfus “denied the fact of” his 

2009 positive showing of cocci infection. ECF No. 1, at 7. These denials came even after clear 

evidence of a May 29, 2009, pulmonary care consultation showing a right upper lobe mass and 

likely Valley Fever. 

Plaintiff contends that his Valley Fever is being kept from him and that he is not receiving 

proper treatment.

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 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

4

Claim Three 

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Johnson discontinued his Lyrica as a pain 

medication taken for his other ailments, stating that he did not fit the criteria for the medication. 

This caused Plaintiff to suffer greatly.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Defendant Lee

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of claims previously decided on their 

merits. Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). “The 

elements necessary to establish res judicata are: ‘(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on 

the merits, and (3) privity between parties.’” Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1052 (quoting TahoeSierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.2d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003)).

“As a general matter, a court may, sua sponte, dismiss a case on preclusion grounds ‘where the 

records of that court show that a previous action covering the same subject matter and parties had 

been dismissed.’” Headwaters, Inc., 399 F.3d at 1055 (quoting Evarts v. W. Metal Finishing Co., 

253 F.2d 637, 639 n. 1 (9th Cir.1958)). 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Lee were originally raised in Knapp v. Grannis, 1:11-

cv-01467 SKO. The Court screened the complaint and found that he stated an Eighth Amendment 

claim against Defendant Lee. However, Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s orders related 

to service issues and the action was dismissed, with prejudice, on June 23, 2014, for failure to 

prosecute. 

This case involves the same claim against Defendant Lee, and a dismissal for failure to 

prosecute is a dismissal on the merits. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228 (1995). 

Plaintiff is therefore barred from restating his claims against Defendant Lee. 

2. Eighth Amendment - Medical Care

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 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

5

2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that 

failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain 

or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 

(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which 

entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks 

omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Defendants Meissner-Frisk and Stolus

Plaintiff first alleges that Defendants Meissner-Frisk and Stolus “denied the fact of [his] 

2009 positive showing of the cocci infection,” and told him that he did not have Valley Fever. 

ECF No. 1, at 7. He also cites to a May 2009 pulmonary consultation showing a right upper lobe 

mass and contends that he has had numerous positive cocci titers. Plaintiff therefore believes that 

he has been denied Valley Fever treatment.

Based on Plaintiff’s attached exhibits, it appears that Defendants Meissner-Frisk and 

Stolus interviewed and/or examined Plaintiff with regard to his July 12, 2014, appeal contending 

that he had Valley Fever in 2009 and was not told or treated. ECF No. 1, at 9-13. According to 

the Second Level denial, Defendant Meissner-Frisk completed a thorough review of Plaintiff’s 

electronic Unit Health Record and there were no records stating he had Valley Fever in 2009. 

Defendant Stolfus also reviewed Plaintiff’s health records, including multiple lab studies 

performed while Plaintiff was at CSATF. All tests for coccidioides antibody (Valley Fever 

testing) were negative, and the reviewer concluded that Plaintiff did not have Valley Fever. A 

cocci skin test was ordered on February 20, 2015, to verify if Plaintiff had a previous positive 

infection. The reviewer also noted that upon examination, Plaintiff was completely asymptomatic. 

ECF No. 1, at 12-14.

///

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 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

6

Based upon their review of Plaintiff’s medical records and their interview with Plaintiff, 

both Defendant Meissner-Frisk and Stolus concluded that Plaintiff did not have Valley Fever. 

There is no indication that this conclusion was in any way deliberately indifferent. 

Indeed, Plaintiff’s medical records from 2009 show numerous possible causes of a right 

lung mass. An April 2, 2009, cocci serology indicates that antibodies were not detected. ECF No. 

1, at 21. The May 2009 consult cited by Plaintiff indicates that the doctor “needs to rule out 

malignancy, but it can happen with Valley Fever. . . rule out tuberculoma.” The doctor suggested 

cocci serology. ECF No. 1, at 33. Concurrent diagnostic testing indicated that “Valley Fever 

would be likely,” and “differential includes cocci, tuberculosis or carcinoma.” ECF No. 1, at 24, 

26. Finally, an August 19, 2009, chest x-ray- states coccidiomycoses “appears a likely 

consideration.” The doctor suggested a repeat cocci titer and if appropriate, a CT scan of his 

chest. ECF No. 1, at 23.

Therefore, the records show that there was more than one possible cause for Plaintiff’s 

lung mass in 2009, and there is no indication that he was ever diagnosed with Valley Fever. 

In fact, Plaintiff seems to acknowledge this. On the September 17, 2014, First Level response, 

Plaintiff wrote on the letter, “It would of been nice if they told me Valley Fever would of been 

likely.” ECF No. 1, at 14.

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Defendants Meissner-Frisk and Stolfus.

Defendant Johnson

Plaintiff next contends that Defendant Johnson discontinued his Lyrica as a pain 

medication, stating that he did not fit the criteria for the medication. Again, however, he presents 

no facts that suggest that she acted with the requisite state of mind. Plaintiff therefore fails to state 

a claim against Defendant Johnson

3. Defendant Virk

As noted above, Plaintiff must link the actions or omissions of each named defendant to a 

violation of his rights. Here, Plaintiff names Defendant Virk in the caption, but he does not 

include him in any factual allegations.

///

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 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

7

Though the Court will not guess as to Plaintiff’s factual allegations as to Defendant Virk, it 

appears that he denied Plaintiff’s health care appeal at the Second Level. ECF No. 1, at 12-13. 

Plaintiff is advised that generally, denying a prisoner’s administrative appeal does not cause or 

contribute to the underlying violation. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) 

(quotation marks omitted). However, because prison administrators cannot willfully turn a blind 

eye to constitutional violations being committed by subordinates, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1098 (9th Cir. 2006), there may be limited circumstances in which those involved in reviewing an 

inmate appeal can be held liable under section 1983. 

Under Plaintiff’s current factual allegations, that circumstance has not been presented here. 

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state any cognizable claims against any Defendants.

Plaintiff has not previously been provided with notice of the deficiencies in his claims and 

the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes, 

in good faith, he can cure the identified deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 

(9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 

F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not amend his claim against Defendant Lee, 

as that claim is barred.

If Plaintiff amends, he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under 

section 1983, it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the mere 

theory of respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 

(9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 

allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . .” Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 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

8

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

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

file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order; 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00961-GSA Document 6 Filed 11/04/15 Page 8 of 8