Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02077/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02077-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed 

December 29, 2014.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 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

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 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at High Desert State Prison, brings this civil rights action against 

defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at CCI Tehachapi. Plaintiff names the 

following individual defendants: Harold Tate, M.D.; Dr. Nguyen, M.D.; CCI Warden K. 

Holland. Plaintiff claims stem from the denial of his request for a therapeutic diet while housed 

at CCI.

Plaintiff alleges that while housed at the Stanislaus County Jail in 2009, he was evaluated 

by a physician, and placed on a vegetarian diet that did not include any preservatives. Plaintiff 

alleges that when he consumed food with preservatives, he had an allergic reaction. Plaintiff also 

alleges that he is allergic to processed meat, cheese and soy. Plaintiff alleges that the allergic 

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 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

reactions he suffered did not allow him to “proceed with daily functions, exercise, interact with 

cellmate or others.” (Compl. 8:7.) Plaintiff was transferred to the Deuel Vocational Institution 

in June of 2011. Plaintiff was placed on a regular diet. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he lost 

40 pounds due to his inability to eat the food provided. In November of 2011, Plaintiff was 

transferred to Corcoran State Prison, where he was authorized a vegetarian diet.

Plaintiff was transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison in September of 2012, and did not 

experience any problems with a vegetarian diet until September of 2013, when prison officials 

began serving processed dairy cheese, which caused Plaintiff to have an allergic reaction. 

Plaintiff alleges that he “filed to M.D., Food Manager, through grievance process with negative 

results depriving Plaintiff of proper diet.” (Id. 8:19.) 

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiff was transferred to CCI Tehachapi. Plaintiff alleges that he 

was denied a vegetarian diet until June of 2014. Plaintiff alleges that at some point, he received 

a meal which had preservatives in it, causing an allergic reaction. Plaintiff alleges that he 

“notified floor staff to notify medical staff with negative results.” (Id. 8:27.) Plaintiff refers to 

an unspecified defendant, alleging that “Defendant said nothing in his records indicated Plaintiff 

was allergic to any food and that Defendant would have to view this reaction in order to 

accommodate Plaintiff‟s meals.” (Id. 10:8-9.) Plaintiff advised the Defendant that while he was 

at the Stanislaus County Jail, he was diagnosed by a medical doctor with allergies to food 

preservatives. Plaintiff continues to refer generally to “the Defendant,” alleging that he became 

argumentative and asked Plaintiff to leave the appointment (Plaintiff does not specify when the 

appointment was). 

Plaintiff expressed his concerns to the chaplain and the food services manager, both of 

whom told Plaintiff that to “the only one who would be reliable to substitute and order substation 

would be Doctor Tate.” (Id. 10:22.) Plaintiff was scheduled to see Dr. Tate on June 10, 2014. 

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Tate failed to evaluate or examine Plaintiff. Dr. Tate referred Plaintiff 

back to the food manager. Plaintiff referred Dr. Tate to the Chaplain‟s response to his inmate 

request. Plaintiff also refers to a chrono “that indicates when allergic reaction accures [sic] 

inmate is to be immediately brought to the medical office to be evaluated.” (Id. 11:5.) Plaintiff 

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 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

advised Dr. Tate of what specific foods caused a reaction. The complaint lists the foods in 

detail. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Tate refused to review the list of menu items Plaintiff presented 

to him. Plaintiff requested to be tested for Allergies. Dr. Tate denied Plaintiff‟s request. Dr. 

Tate did, however, conduct blood tests which came back negative. 

Plaintiff continued to seek “further evaluation” during a committee meeting with 

correctional counselors, a captain, a psychologist, and the Warden. (Id. 12:20.) Plaintiff alleges 

that he was advised to contact the Community Resource Manager regarding his diet. Plaintiff 

continued to send numerous requests to medical officials, staff, and others. Plaintiff alleges that 

the officials were non-responsive. 

Plaintiff alleges that on an unspecified date, he complained to staff that he suffered an 

allergic reaction after eating breakfast and dinner. Staff treated him with Benadryl. Plaintiff 

alleges that Benadryl does not address his allergies, it only makes him drowsy. Plaintiff 

continued to file inmate grievances and health care appeals, which were denied. 

Plaintiff alleges that he had an appointment with Dr. Nguyen. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. 

Nguyen agreed to substitute certain menu items that Plaintiff was concerned about. Plaintiff 

alleges that the substitutions did not occur, and he was seen again by Dr. Nguyen. Plaintiff 

alleges that at this second appointment, he advised Plaintiff that he could not substitute or 

accommodate any meals. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Nguyen‟s advice to him was to not eat the 

foods that cause a reaction. Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he only eats the bread that is served. 

Plaintiff alleges that he ate eight pieces of bread each day, causing him to gain weight. Plaintiff 

alleges that, due to his dietary restrictions, he could not exercise.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has attached to his complaint copies of his health care 

grievances, and the responses to them.1 The response at the Second Level, dated May 5, 2014, 

indicates that it was determined that since Plaintiff‟s incarceration in June 2011, he never had an 

accommodation chrono for a special diet. The response indicates that there is currently no 

 

1

Error! Main Document Only.The court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are 

contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2002); Steckman v. Hart Brewing, 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 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

clinical confirmation of Plaintiff‟s stated allergy to nitrates/nitrites and, as such, Plaintiff‟s 

request for a kosher diet was denied. Plaintiff was directed to continue discussions with the 

Chaplain for a kosher diet for personal religious reasons. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Eighth Amendment 

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison 

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner‟s claim does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment 

violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the „minimal civilized measure 

of life‟s necessities,‟” and (2) “the prison official „acted with deliberate indifference in doing 

so.‟” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 

F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002)(citation omitted)). In order to find a prison official liable under the 

Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement within a prison, the official 

must know “that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by 

failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).

“The Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to 

maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing.” LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 

1445 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir. 2000); Keenan v. 

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 1996)(amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts indicating that any of the Defendants knew 

that Plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm. Although Plaintiff alleges in great detail 

his dietary concerns, he fails to allege that a medical professional at CDCR has diagnosed him 

with a specific food allergy that would authorize the diet that Plaintiff seeks. That Plaintiff was 

accommodated at the Stanislaus County Jail and at other prisons does not establish that Plaintiff 

was subjected to an objectively serious risk to his health. Plaintiff‟s allegations indicate that, in 

his opinion, he suffers from an allergic reaction to processed foods. Plaintiff‟s own exhibits 

indicate that there is no clinical basis for Plaintiff‟s self-diagnosis. 

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 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

Further, the facts alleged indicate that Dr. Tate subjected Plaintiff to a blood test, which 

came back negative for allergies. Plaintiff is advised that “A difference of opinion between a 

physician and the prisoner – or between medical professionals – concerning what medical care is 

appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 

(9th Cir. 2012)(citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). The only named 

Defendants are Dr. Tate, Dr. Nguyen and Warden Holland. The facts alleged indicate that Dr. 

Tate and Dr. Nguyen saw Plaintiff, and refused to authorize a special diet on medical grounds. 

The only conduct charged to Warden Holland is that he sat on a committee that addressed 

Plaintiff‟s concerns, and referred Plaintiff to a Chaplain, in order that Plaintiff might obtain his 

requested diet by other means. In order to hold any of the Defendants liable, Plaintiff must 

allege some facts indicating that they were aware of an objectively serious medical condition, the 

seriousness of which is based on something other than Plaintiff‟s opinion. Because Plaintiff has 

not alleged facts indicating that any of the Defendants were deliberately indifferent, the 

complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended 

complaint.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge the treatment he received, Plaintiff is advised of 

the following. A prisoner‟s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and 

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the mistreatment rises to the 

level of “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, 104 (1976)). The two part test for 

deliberate indifference requires 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. A defendant does not act in a deliberately 

indifferent manner unless the defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate 

health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a 

high legal standard,” Simmons v. Navajo County Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010);

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is shown where there was “a 

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 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

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical need” and the 

indifference caused harm. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

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 105-106). “[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. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 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)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes 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 and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All 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 

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 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

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed December 29, 2014, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

first amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02077-AWI-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 Page 8 of 8