Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01998/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01998-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BALE PERCELLE, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. ALAN ROSENTHAL, DR.

QUAN DINH, DR. C. KRISHNA, DR.

POMPAN, DR. M. FRIEDMAN, and

JOHN and JANE DOES of the review

committee, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-1998 WHA (PR) 

ORDER AND RULINGS;

REFERRAL TO MEDIATION

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The Court granted in part and

denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and to determine sufficiency of discovery responses. 

Among other things, certain matters were deemed admitted because defendant Friedman did not

admit or deny the requests for admissions within the time allowed by the rule. See Fed.

R.Civ.P. 36(a). Defendant Friedman has moved to reconsider the ruling as to the requests for

admissions directed to him. The motion (document number 41) is DENIED because Friedman

has not obtained permission to file a motion to reconsider as required by Local Rule Civ 7-9(a). 

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a second amended complaint to replace John Does of the

previous complaint with the actual names of the members of the Health Review Committee he

intended as defendants. If leave to amend were granted, the Court would conduct the review

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, to determine if he had stated a claim against the newly-named

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 53 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 WMX Technologies overruled McGuckin only to the limited extent that McGuckin suggested that

a court's dismissal with leave to amend is a final judgment for purposes of appeal where the plaintiff

simply does not choose to file an amended complaint. WMX Technologies, 104 F.3d at 1136. Rather,

a further district court determination dismissing the complaint must be obtained before the order can

be appealed. Id.

2

defendants. If the new claims could not survive that review, there is no point in allowing the

amendment.

The complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not

need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a

right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955,

1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for

relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. 

Plaintiff provides as to the members of the Health Review Committee only conclusory

allegations that they signed off on “conflicting procedures.” Such allegations are not sufficient

to render “plausible” the contention that they were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious

medical need, when that deliberate indifference requires a purposeful act or failure to act on the

part of the defendant and resulting harm. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.

1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).1

 And in the absence of federal claims the Court would elect not to

exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental malpractice claims. See Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n

v. City of Simi Valley, 70 F.3d 1095, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 1995) (denial of leave to amend

complaint to add state law claim against three defendants was proper because there was no

remaining federal claim against any of those defendants). 

The claims against the new defendants would be dismissed from the case if the

amendment were allowed. It therefore would be futile to allow it. Leave to amend (document

number 46) is DENIED. 

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 53 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff has also moved to compel the custodian of records at the Correctional Training

Facility to comply with a subpoena duces tecum plaintiff had the United States Marshals

Service serve upon him. He says in a declaration that the custodian has ignored the subpoena. 

The motion is unopposed. The motion to compel (document number 47) therefore is GRANTED. 

The defendants’ counsel shall ensure that a response to the subpoena is provided to plaintiff

within fourteen days of the date this order is entered. 

Finally, plaintiff moves for a temporary restraining order. He alleges that since he has

been moved to a new housing area within the Correctional Training Facility he has not received

his medication for hypertension, and that although his allergies are so severe that he had to be

rushed to a hospital by ambulance because swelling in his throat was blocking his breathing, he

has not been given the prescribed “Epi-pen” for his allergies. Although the motion is

unopposed, so the only evidence before the Court is that provided by plaintiff, he has failed to

provide sufficient facts to show that he is at risk for irreparable injury. For instance, he does not

indicate the level of his hypertension, what the medication was, whether the prescription for it

expired by its own terms, or whether the hypertension might be controlled by other means, such

as diet and exercise. As to the Epi-pen, he does not even explain what that might be. In light of

this, the motion (document number 49) is DENIED. See Diamontiney v. Borg, 918 F.2d 793,

795 (9th Cir. 1990) (both traditional and alternative tests for injunctive relief require some

showing of irreparable harm). The dismissal is without prejudice to renewing the motion if

plaintiff contends he still is not receiving proper care, subject to the stay entered below.

 The court has established a Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Certain prisoner civil

rights cases may be referred to a neutral magistrate judge for prisoner mediation proceedings. 

The proceedings consist of one or more conferences as determined by the mediator. The

conferences are conducted at the plaintiff’s institution, with the defendants or their

representatives attending by videoconferencing if they wish.

This case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Vadas pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner

Mediation Program. All further proceedings in this case except those related to the mediation

and compliance with the subpoena as ordered above are STAYED pending completion of that

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 53 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

procedure.

The mediation proceedings shall take place within forty-five days of the date this order

is entered. Magistrate Judge Vadas shall coordinate a time and date for a mediation proceeding

with all interested parties or their representatives and, within five days after the conclusion of

the mediation proceedings, file a report. All mediation proceedings shall be confidential and no

statement made therein will be admissible in any proceedings in the case, unless the parties

otherwise agree. No part of the mediation proceeding shall be reported, or otherwise recorded,

without the consent of the parties, except for any memorialization of a settlement.

The clerk shall mail a copy of the court file, including a copy of this order, to Magistrate

Judge Nandor Vadas in Eureka, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.05\PERCELLE998.RECON.wpd 

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 53 Filed 09/17/07 Page 4 of 4