Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00176/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00176-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES INGRAM,

Plaintiff, No. 1:07-cv-00176 ALA P

vs.

MTA F. BREWER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff James Ingram is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a first

amended complaint as directed by the court’s May 17, 2007, order. That complaint alleges a

violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights by defendants who are employees of a governmental

entity. 

I

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), when the litigant is a prisoner, the court must screen

complaints brought against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. The court must dismiss the complaint if the claims contained in it, even when read

broadly, are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

915(A)(b). A claim “is frivolous [if] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

Case 1:07-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 02/04/08 Page 1 of 6
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

2

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “At this stage of the litigation, [this Court] must accept

[Plaintiff’s] allegations as true.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts 

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Id.

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the

conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter,

466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cr. 2006). 

II

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges that defendant Brewer administered plaintiff

another inmates insulin causing plaintiff to become ill. First Amended Complaint at 3. Plaintiff

alleges that the “C/O’s and medical staff” denied plaintiff pain relief and attempted to encourage

plaintiff to “not pursue the issue.” Id.

 “‘The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain upon incarcerated individuals under

color of law constitutes a violation of the Eight Amendment.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

“A violation of the Eighth Amendment occurs when prison officials are deliberately indifferent

to a prisoner’s medical needs.” Id. at 1057. 

“In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of two parts.” Jett v.

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). “First, the plaintiff must show 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.’” Id. (quoting McGuckin,

974 F.2d at 1059). “Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was

deliberately indifferent.” Id. A plaintiff can show a defendant’s response was deliberately

indifferent by demonstrating “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or

possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. “Indifference ‘may appear

Case 1:07-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be

shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care.’” Id. (quoting McGuckin,

974 F.2d at 1059). 

“A prison official acts with ‘deliberate indifference . . . only if [he or she] knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d 1057. “Under this

standard, 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 that person ‘must also draw the

inference.’” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). “‘[D]eliberate

indifference to medical needs may be shown by circumstantial evidence when the facts are

sufficient to demonstrate that a defendant actually knew of a risk of harm.’” Id. at 1057 n.4

(quoting Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 421 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not allege that defendant Brewer purposely

failed to act or respond to plaintiff’s medical need. The actions of defendant Brewer appear at

worst negligent. Plaintiff alleges that “C/O’s and medical staff” failed to respond to plaintiff’s

pain, however plaintiff does not identify who those “staff” are. They do not appear to be

defendants Brewer, Stephens or Igbinosa. Therefore, plaintiff’s first amended complaint does

not state a colorable claim for relief and will be dismissed. 

III

To proceed plaintiff must file a second amended complaint. Any amended complaint

must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is brought in the right

place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true, and must contain a

request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who personally

participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson

v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is

legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). If plaintiff contends he was the victim

Case 1:07-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 02/04/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a

specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. FED.

R. CIV. P. 10(B). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); FED. R. CIV. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading).

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and

directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting

point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a

claim.”); FED. R. CIV. P. 8. 

Plaintiff must eliminate from plaintiff’s pleading all preambles, introductions, argument,

speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996)

(affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El

v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases).

A district court must construe pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give a plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Case 1:07-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 02/04/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

The court (and defendants) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. A long, rambling pleading, including many

defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional

injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely will result in

delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies he has made

reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this

rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. FED. R.

CIV. P. 11. Prison rules require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See 15 CAL.

ADMIN. CODE § 3005.

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Plaintiff is further admonished that by signing an

amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that

he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of

his action.

IV

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2007, first amended complaint is dismissed; and 

2. Plaintiff’s is granted thirty-five (35) days from the date of this order to file a

second amended complaint. Failure to file a second amended complaint may result in dismissal.

Case 1:07-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 02/04/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

/////

Dated: February 4, 2008

/s/ Arthur Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:07-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 14 Filed 02/04/08 Page 6 of 6