Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00932/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00932-1/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

GEORGE MC CLURE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. K. CHEN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00932-SKO (PC)

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

First Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff George Mc Clure, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 4, 2014.

1

 The Court is required to 

screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 alleges that systemic deliberate indifference has reached “the point of requiring ‘class action status.’” (Doc. 

1, Comp., court record p. 11.) However, while Plaintiff is entitled to represent himself in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 

1654, “[t]he privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to 

other parties or entities,” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008); accord C. E. Pope Equity 

Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); McGrath v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 298 F.R.D. 601, 609 

(S.D.Cal. 2014).

Case 1:14-cv-00932-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/15 Page 1 of 7
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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of 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). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 

2013); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the 

mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Facts

Plaintiff, who is presently incarcerated at the California Institution for Men in Chino, 

brings this action against staff at North Kern State Prison for acting with deliberate indifference to 

his health and safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has a long seizure disorder history which requires that he be housed on a 

lower tier in the lower bunk. Despite his lower tier/lower bunk medical chrono, Plaintiff was 

housed upstairs and on or around June 9, 2011, he suffered a seizure which caused the retina in his 

Case 1:14-cv-00932-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/15 Page 2 of 7
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

left eye to detach. Although Plaintiff repeatedly complained about his injury, medical staff failed 

to provide with him with appropriate, timely medical care for approximately two months and he 

did not have surgery until August 18, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that he lost the sight in his left eye 

and as a result of the delay in treatment, his vision is 20/300 at best. 

B. Eighth Amendment Claims

1. Legal Standard

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 

101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and 

often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of 

pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted). 

Thus, conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving 

standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. 

Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 

737, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. 

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains 

while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks 

omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials 

were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 

F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. 

Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00932-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/15 Page 3 of 7
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

2. Subjective Element – Insufficient Facts Pled

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to demonstrate the existence of objectively serious 

risks of harm to his safety and/or health. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 

2014); Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-76 (9th Cir. 2013);

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012). More tenuous, however, are Plaintiff’s 

allegations regarding subjective knowledge and the causal connection between each defendant and 

the violation of his rights. Prison officials may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for 

denying humane conditions of confinement only if they knew Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of 

harm and they disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Farmer, 

511 U.S. at 837. Moreover, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating “that the defendants’ actions 

were both an actual and proximate cause of [his] injuries.” Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074. Broad

allegations such as “[e]ach defendant had personal knowledge and professional knowledge of the 

injuries the plaintiff suffered from” will not suffice to supply the specific facts necessary to state a 

claim against each named defendant. (Doc. 1, Comp., court record p. 7.) 

a. Disregard of Lower Tier/Lower Bunk Chrono

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to pursue an Eighth Amendment claim based on the improper 

assignment to an upper tier, he must allege facts linking one or more staff members to actions or 

omissions demonstrating they knew of and disregarded the risk to his safety, resulting in harm. Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any factual linkage between his claim and actions or omissions 

of individual staff members. Plaintiff may not proceed on a generalized claim against staff as a 

group and based on this deficiency, he fails to state a claim under section 1983 arising from his 

assignment to an upper tier.

b. Eye Injury

With respect to Plaintiff’s eye injury, Plaintiff discusses Physician’s Assistant Horton; 

Doctors Schaeffer, Chen, and Patel; Chief Physician and Surgeon Christopher Smith; Chief 

Executive Officer Lawrence Fong; and Medical Appeals Chief L. D. Zamora in his complaint. 

Although Plaintiff only specifically identified Chen and Zamora as defendants, he alleges there are 

additional defendants; and Horton, Schaeffer, Patel, Smith, and Fong are presumably defendants

Case 1:14-cv-00932-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/15 Page 4 of 7
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

despite lack of explicit identification as such. See Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of California, 

766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base Commissary, 720 

F.2d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1983)) (party may be properly in case if allegations make it plain party 

is intended as a defendant). (Comp., § III p. 2 & p. 7.) 

1) Defendants Horton and Schaeffer

Plaintiff’s complaint lacks facts supporting a claim against Defendants Horton and 

Schaeffer. Although both defendants allegedly saw him after his fall, there is inadequate factual 

support to underpinning a claim that they knowingly disregarded Plaintiff’s need for medical care, 

resulting in permanent harm to his left eye.

2) Defendant Chen

Defendant Chen was Plaintiff’s primary care provider. Plaintiff alleges that on June 16, 

2011, he saw Defendant Chen but “this individual did nothing but request a follow-up in six 

weeks.” (Comp., p. 6.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant Chen knew of his fall and his serious vision 

problems but these “fact[s] meant nothing to this doctor.” (Id.) It is not clear from these 

conclusory allegations what transpired during the appointment, and determining whether 

Defendant Chen acted with deliberate indifference by doing nothing other than scheduling a 

follow-up appointment depends on facts which are not pled. See Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23 

(neither inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care nor mere disagreement with chosen 

course of treatment states a claim). While the Court is mindful that Plaintiff’s allegations must be 

liberally construed, Blaisdell, 729 F.3d at 1241, the Court will neither “supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled,” Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014), 

nor “indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I, 572 F.3d at 681.

3) Defendant Patel

Next, Defendant Patel ordered an optometry evaluation on July 11, 2011, but “nothing was 

noted in the plaintiff’s UHR (unit health record) for medical care.” (Comp., p. 6.) This

conclusory allegation does not give rise to a claim for relief against Defendant Patel for violating 

Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment.

///

Case 1:14-cv-00932-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/15 Page 5 of 7
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

4) Defendants Smith, Fong, and Zamora

Finally, Defendants Smith and Fong apparently responded to Plaintiff’s inmate appeal 

approximately one year after his injury and belated surgery.2 Although Plaintiff was dissatisfied 

with their responses, the existence of an inmate appeals process does not create any substantive 

rights and therefore, Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with Smith and Fong’s appeal responses is not 

redressable under section 1983. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. 

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, their involvement in reviewing his appeals 

approximately one year after the events in question provides no basis for liability against them 

under the Eighth Amendment. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 

1076, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2014).

Defendant Zamora is the Chief of Medical Appeals and Plaintiff alleges that her job was to 

evaluate his medical complaints and treatment history, but she did not do so and she rarely does 

so. This allegation does not suffice to state a claim against Defendant Zamora for acting with 

deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s medical needs. As stated above, the existence of the 

appeals process does not itself create any substantive rights, Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860, and 

involvement in reviewing an inmate’s administrative appeal does not necessarily demonstrate 

awareness of alleged violation, Peralta, 744 F.3d at 1086-87. To state a claim under section 1983, 

Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating a causal connection between Defendant Zamora’s actions

or omissions and the harm he suffered. Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under section 1983 for violation of the Eighth 

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

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). 

 

2

It is unclear if Plaintiff erred with respect to dates, but the Court must accept his allegations as pled and he alleges he 

was injured in June 2011, he had surgery in August 2011, Defendant Smith responded to his inmate appeal in July 

2012, and Defendant Fong responded to his appeal in August 2012.

Case 1:14-cv-00932-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/15 Page 6 of 7
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

Plaintiff 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). The amended complaint 

should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights; liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat 

superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. 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), and tangential involvement in the underlying 

violation does not suffice to support a claim for relief, e.g., Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 

977 (9th Cir. 2013); Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75. Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the 

original complaint, Lacey, 693 F.3d at 907 n.1, and it must be “complete in itself without reference 

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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

under section 1983;

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

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

amended complaint not to exceed twenty-five pages; and

4. Failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order will result in 

dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00932-DAD-GSA Document 11 Filed 01/06/15 Page 7 of 7