Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01128/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01128-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

LENNY J. DI CARLO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, et.al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-1128 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a prisoner in federal custody at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater,

California. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal

actors. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on September 5, 2005.

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Case 1:05-cv-01128-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

In the instant case, plaintiff brings action against Warden Schultz, Associate Warden Luna,

Health Services Administrator Willis, Physicians Assistants Refendor, Selicki and Shojale and

Correctional Officer Horchmire. Plaintiff alleges that “medical staff” made him wait eight (8) days

before examining or x-raying his right hand, which turned out to be broken. Plaintiff also alleges that

staff put a false date on the injury assessment report in an attempt to cover up the denial of medical

care. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the defendants for deliberate indifference to his

medical needs. He also seeks a transfer to a facility in Florida.

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of "deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference” standard involves

an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in objective terms,

“sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.

294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,”

which entails more than mere negligence, but less than conduct undertaken for the very purpose of

causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. A prison official does not act in a deliberately

indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or

safety.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner's

civil rights have been abridged, "the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere

'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this cause of action." Broughton

v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[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. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v.

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v.

Case 1:05-cv-01128-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to

establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332,

1334 (9th Cir. 1990). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not support a

claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Deliberate indifference can be manifested by prison guards intentionally denying or delaying

access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. at 104-05. However, where a prisoner alleges a delay in receiving medical

treatment, the prisoner must allege that the delay led to further injury. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d

1050, 1060 (9 Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, th

1136 (9 Cir. 1997); Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9 Cir. th th

1985). 

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to medical

needs. While plaintiff alleges that he had to wait eight days for treatment, he does not allege that the

delay was the result of intentional or deliberate conduct on the part of the defendants. He also does

not allege that the delay led to any further injury. While it is unfortunate that plaintiff was required to

wait for his medical care, mere delay, by itself, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the best

treatment available or to dictate the level of his care. These allegations do not state a claim for

deliberate indifference. 

Further, it appears that plaintiff names defendants Schultz and Luna based on their supervisory

positions. Plaintiff is advised that supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983

for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To show a

prima facie case of supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege facts indicating that supervisory

defendants either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of

Case 1:05-cv-01128-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or implemented a policy "so deficient

that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights" and is "the moving force of the

constitutional violation." Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Because plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim

for supervisory liability against defendants Schultz and Luna, the claims against them must also be

dismissed. 

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court

will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies of this complaint. Failure to cure

the deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action without leave to amend. 

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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant

is involved. There can be no liability 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 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; 

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a Bivens complaint form; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of

Case 1:05-cv-01128-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled

"Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure

to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action for

failure to state a claim and failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01128-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 09/13/06 Page 5 of 5