Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00291/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00291-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS GILBERT LAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. NORIEGA, AND RN LAMBERT,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:08-cv-00291-SPK

ORDER SCREENING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS WHITSON [50],

AND AUTHORIZING SERVICE OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Carlos Gilbert Law is a state prisoner proceeding pro se seeking

relief against employees of a government entity regarding “prison conditions.” 

This order is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c),

under which the court screens complaints brought by prisoners seeking such relief.

The Court previously screened Plaintiff’s prior amended complaint. On

December 15, 2009, the Court dismissed the prior amended complaint, primarily

indicating that no claim was stated under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003,

42 U.S.C. § 15601, and that the amended complaint contained insufficient factual

allegations of an Eighth Amendment violation. The Court, however, granted

Plaintiff leave to filed another (second) amended complaint to attempt to cure

pleading deficiencies. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on December

Case 2:08-cv-00291-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 02/23/10 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

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on March 17, 2009 [doc. 45]. That prior grant of IFP status remains

in effect. The Court had granted IFP status after reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP

application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court noted that Plaintiff has had two

prior confirmed civil actions dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim in

the Eastern District of California, and that a prisoner named “Carlos Gilbert Law”

has had at least two actions similarly dismissed in the 1990’s in a federal court in

Alabama. (See Court’s Order of February 20, 2009 [doc. 42], at note 2.) If a

prisoner has had 3 or more such actions dismissed, the prisoner may not proceed

on an IFP basis, absent “imminent danger.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court

allowed this action to proceed on an IFP basis after Plaintiff denied under penalty

of perjury that he is the same person who had filed all the identified actions in

federal court in Alabama [doc. 43]. In granting IFP status, the Court stated that if

it is later determined that the same “Carlos Gilbert Law” brought all the identified

actions, then this action will be dismissed as malicious [doc. 42].

2

30, 2009 [doc. 49]. This order screens that Second Amended Complaint.1

I.

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). “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 . . . fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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). Although a complaint

“does not need detailed factual allegations” to survive dismissal, a plaintiff must

provide “more than mere labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to

Case 2:08-cv-00291-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 02/23/10 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

rise above the “speculative level,” id., or the merely possible or conceivable. Id. at

557, 570. That is, the complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A claim has “facial plausibility”

when the complaint presents enough facts “to draw the reasonable inference that

the defendant is liable.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

1949 (2009). In a pro se civil rights case, the complaint must be construed

liberally to afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. See, e.g., Karim-Panahi v. Los

Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988).

II.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff “must demonstrate that (1)

the action occurred ‘under color of state law’ and (2) the action resulted in the

deprivation of a constitutional right or federal statutory right.” Jones v. Williams,

297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff here is apparently making allegations

of an Eighth Amendment violation for failure to provide adequate medical

treatment. A claim for inadequate medical care against prison officials only gives

rise to an Eighth Amendment violation under § 1983 if Plaintiff shows Defendants

acted with “deliberate indifference to [his] 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 well-pleaded allegations of (1) a “serious medical need”

such that failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and (2) the defendant's response was

deliberately indifferent. Id. To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official

must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

substantial risk of serious harm exists and he or she must also draw that inference. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Deliberate indifference in the medical context may be shown by a purposeful

Case 2:08-cv-00291-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 02/23/10 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

act or failure to respond to a prisoner's medical need and harm caused by the

indifference. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may also be shown

when a prison official intentionally denies, delays, or interferes with medical

treatment or by the way prison doctors respond to the prisoner's medical needs. Id.

Deliberate indifference is a higher standard than negligence or lack of ordinary due

care for the prisoner’s safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.

III.

Applying these standards, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint states a claim, at least for purposes of screening under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges:

During the month of Dec. 2007 at CSP-Solano in building 10[,] I was

seen by Dr. Noriega and RN Lambert regarding my rape injuries. Dr.

Noriega and RN Lambert took no action to stop the bleeding and

refuse[d] to treat inmate Law[’s] rape injuries. As a result inmate

Law[’s] rectum continue[d] to bleed and was in pain. Dr. Noriega and

RN Lambert intentionally denied inmate Law medical treatement

regarding his rape injuries.

The Second Amended Complaint, taken as true for purposes of this

screening, alleges sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. It

alleges facts indicating deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 

See, e.g., Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (indicating a claim is stated where “a prison

official intentionally denied, delayed, or interfered with medical treatment for a

serious medical need.”). The allegations make a plausible claim that a refusal to

treat resulted in “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” The factual

statement alleges, at least inferentially, that Defendants Noriega and Lambert are

prison medical officials that had some connection or “link” between the alleged

Case 2:08-cv-00291-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 02/23/10 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

actions and the deprivation of the protected right. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (“A person ‘subjects’ another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if [that

person] does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits

to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of

which complaint is made.”).

IV.

The Second Amended Complaint names “Sgt. Whitson” as a Defendant, in

addition to “Dr. Noriega” and “RN Lambert.” The naming of Defendant Whitson,

however, is apparently based upon allegations in prior versions of the complaint. 

Concurrent with the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a

“Motion to Dismiss Sgt. Whitson” [doc. 50], which the Court construes as being

brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). So construed, the Motion [doc. 50] is

GRANTED. Defendant Whitson is DISMISSED. The action shall proceed, if at

all, with the caption as in this order, which names “Dr. Noriega” and “RN

Lambert” as Defendants.

V.

Because the Second Amended Complaint passes the necessary screening, the

Court authorizes Plaintiff to proceed with the attempting of service of process. 

Accordingly,

(1) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of this order, two

USM-285 forms, a summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the Second

Amended Complaint filed on December 30, 2009.

(2) Within 30 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the

following requirements for service of the current complaint:

Case 2:08-cv-00291-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 02/23/10 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

(a) properly complete and sign the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents form,

(b) properly complete the summons form;

(c) properly complete a USM-285 form for each Defendant listed

above (Noriega and Lambert); and

(c) submit four copies of the complaint filed on December 30, 2009;

and

(d) provide the completed forms and copies of the complaint to the

Clerk of Court.

(4) Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request

waiver of service. Upon receipt of all the documents listed above in section (3),

the Court will issue an order directing the Clerk to forward the completed forms to

the United States Marshal to serve the named Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4, without payment of costs.

(5) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order within 30 days may result in

dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2010.

_____________________________

Samuel P. King

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00291-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 02/23/10 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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS G. LAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. NORIEGA, and RN LAMBERT,

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:08-cv-00291-SPK

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with

the court’s order filed February 23, 2010:

_____ completed summons form

_____ completed USM-285 forms

_____ copies of the complaint

DATED: ______________________

_______________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:08-cv-00291-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 02/23/10 Page 7 of 7