Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00778/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00778-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD L. GRAY II,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ROBINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00778-GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 2)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Edward L. Gray (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on September 25, 2007, in the

Central District of California and transferred to this district on June 5, 2008. 

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).

“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). 

///

Case 1:08-cv-00778-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 07/15/08 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

2

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to 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).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claims

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. The events

giving rise to the claims at issue in this action allegedly occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison in

Coalinga. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution

stemming from prison officials’ failure to provide him with proper and/or adequate medical

treatment for Valley Fever. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and names Dr. R. Ortiz, Dr. N.

Kushner, and Medical Technical Assistant D. Robinson as defendants 

 “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part

test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by

demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or

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

deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate indifference 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. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). Deliberate indifference may be

Case 1:08-cv-00778-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 07/15/08 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

3

manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or

it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. (citing McGuckin

at 1060 (internal quotations omitted)). 

Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Ortiz and Kushner do not give rise to a claim for

relief under section 1983. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the course of treatment they chose, and his

belief that additional testing and different medication should have been prescribed are not sufficient

to support a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344

(9th Cir. 1981).

Further, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that Defendant Robinson kept turning him away

and refusing to call a doctor are insufficient to support a claim under section 1983. “Deliberate

indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004).

“Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts from which the

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person ‘must also

draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “‘If a

prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe,

Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . ,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted), and in this instance, they fall short of

supporting a claim that Defendant Robinson “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to

[Plaintiff’s] health . . . ” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. In addition, any delay must have led to further

harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th

Cir. 1985)). 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under federal

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

deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by

Case 1:08-cv-00778-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 07/15/08 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

4

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th

Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff is informed that he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in brief but 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).

Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. When a named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between that defendant 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 state a claim for

relief under section 1983 for supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the

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

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) (internal citations

omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 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), and 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 in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

1474.

///

Case 1:08-cv-00778-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 07/15/08 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

5

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim;

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 shall file an

amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 14, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00778-OWW -GSA Document 5 Filed 07/15/08 Page 5 of 5