Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00419/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00419-3/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT BILLINGER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHURCH, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0419 AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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

1915(a). ECF Nos. 15, 17. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

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 will be 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 for monthly payments 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/16 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

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). 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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 where 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. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 

1989) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”) (citation and internal 

quotations omitted)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, 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. (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must 

contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a 

legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/16 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

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint 

under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, 

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading 

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

II. Complaint 

 In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when 

transportation officers transported him from the hospital by car when the doctor had ordered he be 

transported by ambulance. ECF No. 1 at 3. He alleges that he was still recovering from surgery 

and that as a result of being transported by car, his wound re-opened, causing intense pain and 

significant bleeding. Id. Plaintiff names Dr. Church as his only defendant. Id. at 2. He seeks 

monetary relief. Id. at 4. 

III. Failure to State a Claim 

“[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, 104 (1976)). This 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 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotations marks omitted), overruled on other grounds WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 

1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)). 

Deliberate indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/16 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

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 

(9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Deliberate 

indifference can be established “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.” Jett, 439 F.3d 

at 1096 (citation omitted). “A prisoner need not prove that he was completely denied medical 

care. Rather, he can establish deliberate indifference by showing that officials intentionally 

interfered with his medical treatment.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citations omitted) (en banc). A difference of opinion between an inmate and prison medical 

personnel—or between medical professionals—regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and 

treatment are not enough to establish a deliberate indifference claim. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 

240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058. 

Plaintiff names Dr. Church as the only defendant, but the complaint does not contain any 

allegations against Dr. Church. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. The attachments to the complaint, on the other 

hand, include a letter in which plaintiff states that “Dr. Church told [plaintiff] that it was all on 

him to get [plaintiff] back to C-H-C-F prison by all means.” Id. at 11. Additionally, a health care 

appeal response states that transporting plaintiff with a state vehicle “was an urgent medical 

decision made by the Chief Physician & Surgeon,” but does not identify the Chief Physician & 

Surgeon. Id. at 14. Based upon the attachments to the complaint and a subsequent letter filed by 

plaintiff (ECF No. 14), it appears that he may be attempting to allege that Dr. Church was the 

individual who decided that plaintiff should be transported by car rather than by ambulance. 

In its current state, the complaint presents only a claim of supervisory liability against Dr. 

Church, and “[t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” Taylor v List, 880 

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor may be liable for the constitutional violations of 

his subordinates if he “knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. The 

complaint against Dr. Church fails to allege that he knew of the allegedly inappropriate method of 

transportation and failed to stop it and will therefore be dismissed with leave to amend. 

If plaintiff seeks to bring a claim against Dr. Church, he must specify, in the body of the 

complaint, not in the attachments, what Dr. Church did or failed to do that caused him harm. He 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/16 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

cannot simply allege that Dr. Church is responsible for his injuries because he was ultimately 

responsible for transportation. In other words, plaintiff must show that Dr. Church had some 

knowledge that plaintiff was going to be transported in an inappropriate manner and that Church 

failed to make sure plaintiff was transported safely. 

It is not clear whether plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim against the officers that 

transported him. He does not identify either officer by name and does not list them, even as Doe 

defendants, in the “Defendants” section of the complaint. ECF No. 1 at 2-3. If plaintiff is 

attempting to include the transportation officers as defendants, he is advised that the use of 

fictitiously named Doe defendants is generally not favored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 

642 (9th Cir. 1980). However, amendment is allowed to substitute true names for fictitiously 

named defendants. Merritt v. County of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 768 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff is further advised that even if he is able to state a claim against the transportation 

officers, the court is unable to serve unidentified defendants and will not be able to serve the 

complaint on the officers until they are identified by name. 

IV. Leave to Amend 

 The court will provide plaintiff an opportunity to file a first amended complaint to attempt 

to cure the deficiencies identified above. If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he 

must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his 

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. 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. Board of Regents, 673 

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

Additionally, there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor, 880 F.2d at 

1045. “A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if there exists either (1) his 

or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/16 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

between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.’” Starr v. Baca, 652 

F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

Supervisory liability may also exist without any personal participation if the official implemented 

“a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of the constitutional rights and is the 

moving force of the constitutional violation.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 

1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted), abrogated on other 

grounds by Farmer, 511 U.S. 825. Therefore, to the extent plaintiff seeks to bring claims against 

supervisors, he cannot simply rely on their position as supervisors and must identify the actions 

taken by the individuals that violated or led to the violation of his rights or identify the deficient 

policy the supervisor implemented. 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 929 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled in subsequent 

amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the 

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a first amended 

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. 

V. Summary 

 Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

 The complaint is dismissed because Plaintiff did not explain how Dr. Church caused his 

injury. Plaintiff will be given a chance to amend his complaint to explain what Dr. Church did or 

did not do that caused his injury. If plaintiff also wants to bring a claim against the transportation 

officers, he needs to list them in the “Defendants” section of the complaint form, but the court 

will not be able to serve them with the complaint until plaintiff identifies them by name. If 

plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the amended complaint must include all the claims 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/16 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 wants to make because the court will not look at the claims in the original complaint or 

any other documents plaintiff has already filed. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint 

within thirty days of service of this order, the court will recommend that this case be dismissed. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 15, 17) 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. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed. 

 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a first 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 

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

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to 

file a first amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 

DATED: January 4, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-AC Document 18 Filed 01/05/16 Page 7 of 7