Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05398/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05398-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 manufacturer's website describes Konsyl as an "all natural fiber supplement."

www.konsyl.com (last visited on February 12, 2015).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN HADEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-5398 SI (pr)

ORDER OF SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Steven Haden, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the court for initial review of the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

 

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges the following: In or about November 2009, Haden arrived at San

Quentin "with a pre-existing serious medical condition/disability which causes stomach

problems and a lack of being able to have a regular bowel movement." Docket # 5 at 3. On or

about September 12, 2013, medical care providers failed to renew his "prescribed medication

(Konsyl)" for his chronic condition "without a replacement or equal substitute.” Id.1

 Haden

filed an inmate appeal and learned that primary care provider Dr. J. Espinoza determined that

Haden "did not seem to be constipated" and that Konsyl was a non-formulary drug which meant

that it cost more to provide it to a prisoner. Dr. E. Tootell, the chief medical executive at the

Case 3:14-cv-05398-SI Document 9 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

prison, "denied approval of plaintiff's medication (Konsyl) based solely on cost." Id. Dr.

Espinoza also refused to refer Haden to see a specialist. Haden alleges that his "serious medical

condition" places him at a serious risk of "potential intestinal injury(s)," and causes constant

pain. Id. at 4.

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

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

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs amounts to the cruel and

unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

(1976). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met:

(1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and (2) the official is,

subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Liberally construed, the pro se complaint states a cognizable claim

against defendants Dr. J. Espinoza and Elaine Tootell for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's

serious medical needs based on their decisions to (a) stop providing Konsyl to Haden, and (b)

not to refer him to a specialist for his "chronic gastrointestinal condition [that] caus[es] constant

painful bouts of constipation and bloating from gas." Id. at 5. 

Haden has not stated a claim against the two other listed defendants. Defendant De la

Case 3:14-cv-05398-SI Document 9 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Cruz was a nurse who merely relayed information as to the doctor's decision that Konsyl would

not be provided to Haden. See Docket # 5 at 3. Warden Kevin Chappell is named as a defendant

apparently because he is in charge of the prison. There is no respondeat superior liability under

§ 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of

an employee. A supervisor may be liable under § 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d

1202, 1206-07 (9th Cir. 2011). There are no allegations in the complaint that would support

supervisor liability for the warden. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint states a cognizable claim under § 1983 against Dr. J. Espinoza and

Dr. Elaine Tootell for violating plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. All other claims and

defendants are dismissed. 

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the complaint and amendment (i.e., Docket # 1 and

Docket # 15) and a copy of all the documents in the case file upon the following defendants,

both of whom apparently work on the medical staff at San Quentin State Prison:

- Dr. J. Espinoza

- Dr. E. Tootell (chief medical executive)

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the following briefing schedule for

dispositive motions is set:

a. No later than May 1, 2015, defendants must file and serve a motion for

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion that this case

cannot be resolved by summary judgment, defendants must so inform the court prior to the date

the motion is due. If defendants file a motion for summary judgment, defendants must provide

to plaintiff a new Rand notice regarding summary judgment procedures at the time they file such

a motion. See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Case 3:14-cv-05398-SI Document 9 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 b. Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion

must be filed with the court and served upon defendants no later than May 29, 2015. Plaintiff

must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment provided later in this

order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief must be filed and

served no later than June 12, 2015.

4. Plaintiff is provided the following notices and warnings about the procedures for

motions for summary judgment:

The defendants may make a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to have

your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. . . . Rule 56 tells you what you

must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary

judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact -- that is, if

there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party

who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will

end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that

is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely

on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule

56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants' declarations and documents and

show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own

evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you.

If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998). 

If a defendant files a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, he is seeking to have the case dismissed. As with other defense summary judgment

motions, if a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is

granted, the plaintiff's case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. 

5. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on a defendant's

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant's counsel. The court may disregard

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant's

counsel has been designated, plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

6. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:14-cv-05398-SI Document 9 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

7. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the

court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of

address in every pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this

case on any document he submits to this court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05398-SI Document 9 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 5