Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00474-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. DOMINGO, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00474-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF NO. 8)

CLERK TO CLOSE FILE

DISMISSAL IS SUBJECT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g)

SECOND SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Richard Manuel Burgos is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim.

(Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (First Am.

Compl., ECF No. 8), which is now before the Court for screening. 

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/23/12 Page 1 of 6
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

II. 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, malicious,” or 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). “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).

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges,

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia

Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not

itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal

rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989).

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s primary care physician had prescribed “orthotic shoes” for nerve damage

in his back, hip, leg and foot. Plaintiff here reiterates his earlier claim that upon transfer

from California State Prison-Solano to Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”), Defendant

Receiving and Release Officers at PVSP confiscated one of his two pair of orthotic shoes

in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and violating his Eighth Amendment

rights. (First Am. Compl. at 4-5.) 

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/23/12 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff’s prison appeal was denied at the Third Level. (Id. at 5-6.) 

Plaintiff names as Defendants PVSP Receiving and Release Officers K. Domingo 

and B. Carr. (Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff has suffered pain, swelling, blurred vision, migraines, seizures, insomnia and

sleep deprivation. (Id. at 4.) 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary compensation. (Id. at 7.) 

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Pleading Requirements Generally

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.

1987).

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its

face.’“ Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant

committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions

are not. Id. at 1949–50.

///////

-3-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/23/12 Page 3 of 6
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

B. Deliberate Indifference

Plaintiff alleges he suffers from serious nerve damage; his primary care physician

prescribed orthotic shoes; Defendants interfered with this medical treatment plan by

confiscating one of his two pairs of orthotic shoes with deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs. 

“[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, 106 (1976)). The

two prong test for deliberate indifference requires the 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)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need, and harm

caused by the indifference.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). In

order to state a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege sufficient

facts to support a claim that the named defendants “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an

excessive risk to [plaintiff's] health . . . .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Plaintiff’s allegation that he was diagnosed with nerve damage requiring treatment by

his primary care physician, taken as true on screening, is sufficient to show a serious

medical need satisfying the first prong of deliberate indifference. 

However, Plaintiff again fails to allege facts plausibly claiming Defendants interfered

with his prescribed treatment plan. Nothing before the Court suggests that he was prescribed

-4-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/23/12 Page 4 of 6
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

“two” pair of orthotic shoes; the First Amended Complaint simply alleges he was prescribed

“orthotic shoes” and that he was then issued two pair. (Compl. at 4.) He alleges no facts

suggesting his health care plan and chrono’s required that he possess two pair of orthotic

shoes, or that one pair is not sufficient to meet his health care plan needs.

Plaintiff cites to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department

Operations Manual Section 54030.19.7.2 as allowing for doctor prescribed health care

appliances. However Section 54030.19.7.2 does not support entitlement to two pair of 1

orthotic shoes here because he was not specifically prescribed two pair of orthotic shoes.

There is nothing before the Court that would support a calim that depriving Plainitff

of one of two pair of medically prescribed shoes could constitute an act of indifference to his

serious medical needs or cause Plaintiff any harm. 

The Court’s previous screening order advised of the deficiencies in this claim and

afforded an opportunity to correct them. (Order Dismiss. Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff has not

corrected those deficiencies. Nothing would be gained by in granting yet another opportunity

to correct the same deficiencies. Leave to amend would be futile.2

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state any § 1983 claim

upon which relief may be granted against Defendants. Leave to amend would be futile for

the reasons set out above and will not be granted. Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed with

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department Operations Manual Section 1

54030.19.7.2 lists Registerable Property for Level III and IV Male Inmates. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely given 2

when justice so requires.” Futility is a valid reason for denying leave to amend. In re K-tel Intern., Inc.

Securities Litigation, 300 F.3d 881, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2002). 

-5-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/23/12 Page 5 of 6
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

prejudice.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim,

2. Dismissal is subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g); Silva v. Di Vittorio 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011), and

3. The Clerk shall close the file in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-6-

Case 1:12-cv-00474-MJS Document 9 Filed 05/23/12 Page 6 of 6