Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-07139/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-07139-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISON

KENNETH WAYNE ELLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-7139-NJV (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

Dkt No. 3

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6.)

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). In its review 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

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.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests.’”” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

Case 1:16-cv-07139-NJV Document 7 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's 

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . 

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United 

States Supreme Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: 

“While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by 

factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant has failed to provide him with dentures.

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX 

Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of 

“deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the 

prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 

further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. The existence of 

an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or 

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily 

activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a 

Case 1:16-cv-07139-NJV Document 7 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prisoner has a “serious” need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a 

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate 

it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but 

he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but 

was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. 

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion 

between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to 

a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff seeks to be provided dentures. He has provided exhibits from when he was at San 

Quentin State Prison, but he is now at Valley State Prison and has provided no information 

concerning the status of his dentures request. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to 

provide more information. Plaintiff should identify specific defendants at Valley State Prison who 

have treated him for his dental problems and have denied or delayed his dentures.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the standards 

set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date 

this order is filed and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the 

words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from 

the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the 

dismissal of this case.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order (Docket No. 3) is GRANTED in that plaintiff may show 

this order to prison officials demonstrating that he has a deadline to file an amended complaint.

3. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Case 1:16-cv-07139-NJV Document 7 Filed 01/25/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2017

________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-07139-NJV Document 7 Filed 01/25/17 Page 4 of 4