Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01536-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1536 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly 

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 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

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2).

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific 

facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 

(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). 

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 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

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other 

grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

Plaintiff’s original complaint did not bear his signature; thus, plaintiff was provided an 

opportunity to remedy the oversight. On August 1, 2016, plaintiff provided a signature page. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to scan plaintiff’s signature page (ECF No. 8 at 2) into his 

complaint (ECF No. 1) as page six.

The court now screens plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff names the following physicians as 

defendants: J. Chau, G. Pettersen, R. Rudas, and C. Smith. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a 

“multilevel degenerative spondylosis,” which causes him high levels of pain for which he 

previously was prescribed tramadol or morphine. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) However, when he was 

transferred to Mule Creek State Prison, plaintiff avers that he was taken off these medications 

without a medical explanation and placed on methadone and naproxen for pain. Plaintiff 

contends that he has repeatedly explained to these defendants that these medications do not 

relieve the pain, but they refuse to return plaintiff to the medications that work. 

The Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits deliberate 

indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 

(9th Cir. 1992). A claim of medical indifference requires (1) a serious medical need, and (2) a 

deliberately indifferent response by defendant. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006). The deliberate indifference standard is met by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to 

respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference. Id.

Where a prisoner alleges deliberate indifference based on a delay in medical treatment, the 

prisoner must show that the delay led to further injury. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-

46 (9th Cir. 2002); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060a; Shapley v. Nevada Bd. Of State Prison 

Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). Delay which does not cause harm is 

insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference. Shapley, 766 F.2d at 407 (citing 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” 

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 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

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. (brackets omitted) (quoting Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188). Mere indifference, 

negligence, or medical malpractice is not sufficient to support the claim. Broughton v. Cutter 

Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 87, 105-06 (1976)). 

A prisoner can establish deliberate indifference by showing that officials intentionally interfered 

with his medical treatment for reasons unrelated to the prisoner’s medical needs. See Hamilton v. 

Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 1992); Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. An allegation that prison 

officials deliberately ignored a prisoner’s complaint about the ineffective nature of prescribed 

pain medication and the pain being suffered as a result can, in some circumstances, give rise to a 

constitutional claim. See Chess v. Dovey, 2011 WL 567375, at *21 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) 

(denying summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claim where the doctor “ignored plaintiff’s 

complaint about the ineffective nature of the Tylenol, aspirin and other medications he was being 

given and the pain being suffered as a result”); Franklin v. Dudley, 2010 WL 5477693, at *6 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2010) (existence of triable issue of fact as to whether defendant violated 

Eighth Amendment precluded the granting of summary judgment where plaintiff was previously 

prescribed narcotic pain medication but now was given only Motrin, Naprosyn, and Tylenol 

under prison’s no-narcotic policy). However, a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to the 

medication of his choice, and a mere difference of opinion regarding appropriate treatment and 

pain medication is insufficient to give rise to a constitutional claim. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; 

Wilson v. Borg, 1995 WL 571481, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 1995); McMican v. Lewis, 1995 WL 

247177, at *2 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 1995).

Here, plaintiff fails to provide specific charging allegations as to each named defendant. 

Plaintiff did not identify which doctor took him off the tramadol or morphine, and whether there 

was a gap between the discontinuation of the morphine and when the methadone prescription 

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 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

began. The exhibits appended to the complaint suggest that some of the doctors were only 

involved in the administrative appeal process. First, plaintiff must include specific charging

allegations as to each defendant within his pleading; defendants are not required to pore through 

exhibits in an effort to determine the nature of plaintiff’s claims. Second, prisoners have no 

stand-alone due process rights related to the administrative grievance process. See Mann v. 

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (holding that there is no liberty interest entitling inmates to a specific grievance 

process). Thus, if a doctor involved in the appeals process is named as a defendant, plaintiff must 

provide specific charging allegations explaining how and why such doctor was deliberately 

indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs.

Plaintiff must allege facts as to each doctor’s culpable state of mind; in other words, how 

each named doctor was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff must 

allege facts demonstrating that the change in pain medication is not simply a difference of 

medical opinion, particularly because methadone is often prescribed in place of morphine. 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 

court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required 

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a 

complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones 

v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least 

some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. 

Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the 

complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each 

named defendant is involved. Id. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is 

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 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

Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 

(9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to scan plaintiff’s signature page (ECF No. 8 at 2) 

into his complaint (ECF No. 1) as page six.

4. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 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

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

6. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights action by a 

prisoner.

Dated: November 22, 2016

/john1536.14

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CHAU, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-1536 JAM KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:16-cv-01536-JAM-KJN Document 9 Filed 11/22/16 Page 8 of 8