Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00659/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00659-1/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

MICHAEL L. FOSTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. GODWIN UGWUEZE, M.D.,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN

THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff Michael L. Foster, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

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

His Complaint is now before the Court for screening.

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.

1

Case 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 07/01/13 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

§ 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 COMPLAINT

Plaintiff identifies Dr. Godwin Ugwueze, M.D., as the sole Defendant and alleges the

following:

On June 8, 2010, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Ugwueze for an ongoing parotid gland

dysfunction. Plaintiff told the Defendant, as he had done previously, that a tumor had been

removed but saliva continued to drain and caused xerostomia (dry mouth). Dr. Ugwueze

had Plaintiff’s medical file during the appointment and it reflected Plaintiff’s surgery and

condition. The Doctor disregarded Plaintiff and told a waiting correctional officer he was

finished with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff again tried to explain that every time he eats his saliva gland drains

continuously. Dr. Ugwueze refused to provide treatment or refer Plaintiff to a specialist. 

2

Case 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 07/01/13 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

(Compl. at 2, 3.)

Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate

medical care.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

To state a claim under Section 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. 

See 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, 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.

B. Eighth Amendment

“[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

3

Case 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 07/01/13 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

F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). The

two part 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), overruled on other grounds,

WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations

omitted)). 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 a 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 alleges that he suffers from an ongoing parotid gland dysfunction and

complained to Dr. Ugwueze of resulting dry mouth symptoms. Without more, such

allegations do not satisfy the first element of a medical indifference claim, i.e., a serious

medical need. “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.’” 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). There are no facts alleged

upon which the Court could conclude that Plaintiff’s gland dysfunction and resultant dry

mouth could result in further significant injury or wanton and unnecessary pain, affected

his daily activities, or would be found worthy of comment by a reasonable doctor or patient.

See Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994) (“serious” medical

4

Case 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 07/01/13 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

conditions are those a reasonable doctor would think worthy of comment, those which

significantly affect the prisoner's daily activities, and those which are chronic and

accompanied by substantial pain).

The Complaint also fails to establish that the Defendant acted with deliberate

indifference. “The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials provide a system of

ready access to adequate medical care.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir.

1982), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84

(1995). “[M]edical staff must be competent to examine prisoners and diagnose illnesses,”

and must either “be able to treat medical problems or to refer prisoners to others who can.” 

Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1253. However, given the unspecified nature of Plaintiff’s medical

need and the minimal allegations provided, it is not apparent that medical treatment was

necessary or available. Plaintiff does not describe the circumstances of his condition or

otherwise suggest what the Defendant could and should have done. Further, Plaintiff

alleges no facts to suggest that he was harmed in any way by the lack of treatment. See

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. The Court is unable to determine whether Dr. Ugwueze’s conduct,

under the circumstances, was deliberately indifferent.

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege

facts demonstrating that Dr. Ugwueze knew of and disregarded Plaintiff’s serious medical

need. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Plaintiff must specifically identify the medical need and

provide facts demonstrating that it was sufficiently serious. Plaintiff must also explain how

Dr. Ugwueze’s conduct exhibited deliberate indifference. Conclusory allegations that the

Defendant was obligated to provide medical care and failed to do so, or even that he

committed medical malpractice, are not sufficient; Plaintiff must be specific and describe

5

Case 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 07/01/13 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

something more than simple negligence.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim for relief under section 1983. The Court

will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d

1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the

alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-

49. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible

on its face.’” Id. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also

demonstrate that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his

rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on curing

the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55,

57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,”

refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.

Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although accepted as

6

Case 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 07/01/13 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

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form

and (2) a copy of his Complaint, filed May 6, 2013;

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim and failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:13-cv-00659-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 07/01/13 Page 7 of 7