Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE WILHELM,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARON ROTMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00001-GBC (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(ECF No. 12)

CLERK TO CLOSE CASE

ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Steve Wilhelm is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

December 31, 2009 and consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on February 3, 2010. 

(ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF

No. 9.) On March 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) No

other parties have appeared. It is this First Amended Complaint that is now before the

Court for screening. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENTS

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 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 9
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

§ 1915A(a). 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 or appeal . . . 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)(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.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not provide adequate health care in violation

of his Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: Dr.

Aron Rotman, Dr. Calvin Schuster, and Doctor Assistant Jean Pierre.

Plaintiff alleges as follows: On July 15, 2008, Plaintiff was examined by Defendant

Rotman, who diagnosed Plaintiff with a double hernia. Plaintiff was scheduled to see a

surgeon. On September 5, 2008, Plaintiff was given a very short examine by the surgeon,

Defendant Schuster, who told Plaintiff that he did not have a hernia and that an operation

was not necessary. 

Plaintiff submitted a medical request to see Rotman on September 8, 2008, but

Plaintiff was not called in for the appointment. On October 12, 2008, Plaintiff sent Rotman

a letter explaining that he needed to be seen regarding his hernia. Plaintiff was scheduled

for appointments on October 21 and 26, 2008, but was not called in for either appointment. 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 2 of 9
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

Plaintiff finally saw Rotman on November 11, 2008 and asked for testing to determine if

he had a hernia. Rotman told him they would discuss the hernia at Plaintiff’s next

appointment. Plaintiff was scheduled to see Rotman on December 4, 2008, but was not

called in for the appointment. Plaintiff sent another letter to Rotman on December 7, 2008

and did not receive a response. On December 11, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a medical

request to see Rotman. Plaintiff was scheduled to see a nurse on December 19, 2008, but

was not called in for the appointment. Plaintiff saw Rotman on December 24, 2008 and

he said Plaintiff would be examined for a hernia at his next appointment. On January 27,

2009, Plaintiff saw Rotman who told him he would place him on the list to see a surgeon.

On March 26, 2009, Plaintiff saw Rotman and asked why he had not been to the surgeon

yet. Rotman told him to be patient. 

On July 17, 2009, Plaintiff had an interview for a 602 appeal he had filed about his

hernia and the length of time it was taking to see a surgeon. During the interview, he was

told by the interviewer that he had been taken off the surgeon list because Rotman failed

to file the correct papers. 

Plaintiff was eventually scheduled for surgery. Before that could occur, on August

26, 2009, Plaintiff was told he was going to be transferred. Plaintiff then asked Defendant

Pierre to place a medical hold on Plaintiff so that he could have the surgery. Pierre

declined. 

Plaintiff requests punitive and compensatory damages for emotional injuries and

suffering.

IV. ANALYSIS

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to

the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured

by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an

action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. “Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal

3

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 3 of 9
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

Constitution and laws.” Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir.

1997) (internal quotations omitted).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Rotman, Schuster, and Pierre failed to provide

adequate medical care for his hernia in violation of the 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

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 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). 

The objective component of deliberate indifference requires the showing of 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 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104);

see also Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. “This is true whether the indifference is manifested by

prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally

denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with treatment once

prescribed.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-105. The objective element requires proof that the

prisoner’s serious medical needs were not timely and properly treated.

4

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 4 of 9
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

The subjective component of deliberate indifference considers the nature of the

defendant’s response to the serious medical need and whether the defendant had a

culpable mental state, which is “‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious

harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at

835). “[T]he official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. “[T]he official’s conduct must have been ‘wanton,’ which turns

not upon its effect on the prisoner, but rather, upon the constraints facing the official.” 

Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-303 (1991)). “This

second prong--defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent--is satisfied

by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible

medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citing

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). “A prisoner need not show his harm was substantial;

however, such would provide additional support for the inmate’s claim that the defendant

was deliberately indifferent to his needs.” Id. Indications of a serious medical need include

“[t]he 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.” 

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60 (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th

Cir. 1990)). 

If the claim alleges mere delay of treatment, the inmate must establish that the delay

resulted in some harm. McGuckin, 974 F .2d at 1060 (citing Shapley v. Nevada Board of

State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam)). The delay need not

cause permanent injury. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060; see also Hudson v. McMillian, 503

U.S. 1, 10 (1992). Unnecessary infliction of pain is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. 

Id.

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that

a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

5

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 5 of 9
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

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)

(citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in

diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical

mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a

constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106;

see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin, 974

F.2d at 1050, overruled on other grounds, WMX, 104 F.3d at 1136. Even gross negligence

is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Also, “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) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, Plaintiff “must

show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under

the circumstances . . . and . . . that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an

excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)

(internal citations omitted). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment

does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242

(9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff states that he suffered prolonged pain because of the delay in receiving

treatment. Plaintiff states that, because of the delay in treatment, he could have suffered

a strangulated hernia. However, Plaintiff does not state that this occurred. Plaintiff does

not state that he suffered any further harm because of the delay in treatment.

As to Defendant Schuster, Plaintiff states that Schuster was aware of Plaintiff’s

medical history because he had access to his medical file; that Schuster’s deliberate

indifference was shown by his failure to adequately examine Plaintiff, failure to correctly

diagnose Plaintiff, and failure to do the surgery. Plaintiff, again, fails to demonstrate

deliberate indifference by Defendant Schuster. Plaintiff was scheduled to see the surgeon,

6

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 6 of 9
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

saw and was examined by the surgeon, and the surgeon decided that surgery was

unnecessary. This does not demonstrate deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical

need. If in fact Schuster did misdiagnose Plaintiff, it appears to be nothing more than

negligence or perhaps medical malpractice, but it does not amount to an Eighth

Amendment violation. Thus, this claim fails. 

As to Defendant Rotman, Plaintiff states that he was repeatedly not called in for his

scheduled appointments with Rotman; that when he finally did see Rotman, Rotman told

him they would talk about the hernia at the next appointment; that Rotman twice sent him

to see the surgeon; and that Rotman failed to file the correct paperwork for Plaintiff to see

the surgeon the second time. Again, Plaintiff has failed to establish deliberate indifference

by Defendant Rotman. It appears that although Plaintiff did not see Rotman as often as

he would have liked, he was seen by Rotman several times. Rotman did send Plaintiff to

see a surgeon twice, though the second time was delayed. Again, Rotman’s conduct

appears to be negligence, which does not amount to a constitutional violation.

The Court notes that in a medical request form attached to his Complaint, Plaintiff

described his requested treatment/service as “routine”. This leads the Court to conclude

that, while Plaintiff may have been in some pain, he was not suffering serious enough pain

to describe his request as “urgent” or “emergent”, the other options on the form. (EFC No. 

12, Pl.’s 1st Am. Compl. ex. A.) Additionally, in another attachment where Plaintiff’s appeal

was partially granted, it appears as though Plaintiff’s Primary Care Provider (Rotman)

cancelled the second scheduled appointment with the surgeon because the condition had

resolved itself. (Id.) Plaintiff was evaluated again on August 3, 2009, during which time

it was determined that he should be referred for outside services. (Id.) Plaintiff fails to

include this in his statement of the facts.1

As to Defendant Pierre, Plaintiff states that Pierre denied his request for a medical

hold to prevent a transfer so he could receive the surgery. Plaintiff has also failed to allege

A Court may disregard factual allegations that are contradicted by exhibits attached to the

1

complaint. Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987).

7

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 7 of 9
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

sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendant Pierre was deliberately indifferent. Plaintiff

was given the opportunity to include additional facts related to Pierre’s conduct, and failed

to do so. Thus, being that Plaintiff stated the exact same thing in his original complaint

which was insufficient then, this claim is dismissed.

Again, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations, without more, are insufficient to

support a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Thus, the Court finds that amendment of this

claim would be futile. Plaintiff was previously notified of the relevant legal standards and

the deficiencies in his prior complaint. His First Amended Complaint contains no

allegations that are materially different than those contained in his previous complaint. In

fact, the statement of the case is basically the same as in the original complaint. Because

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint again fails to state a claim, the Court will dismiss this

claim without further leave to amend. 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state any Section

1983 claims upon which relief may be granted against the named Defendants. Under Rule

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

justice so requires.” In addition, “[l]eave to amend should be granted if it appears at all

possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). However, in this action, Plaintiff filed his original

complaint and received substantial guidance from the Court in its Screening Order. (ECF

Nos. 1 & 9.) Even after receiving the Court’s guidance, Plaintiff failed to make alterations

or to include additional facts to address the noted deficiencies. Because of this, the Court

finds that the deficiencies outlined above are not capable of being cured by amendment,

and therefore orders that further leave to amend not be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

/////

///

//

8

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 8 of 9
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

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that this action

be DISMISSED in its entirety, WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 10, 2011 

1j0bbc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

9

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 13 Filed 05/10/11 Page 9 of 9