Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01289/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01289-2/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 1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON PATTEN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

R. ATIENZA, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:13 cv 01289 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

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. § 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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on September 3, 2013 (ECF No. 5). 

Case 1:13-cv-01289-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 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

28 2

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

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

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Avenal State Prison, brings this civil rights action against 

defendant CDCR officials employed by the CDCR at Avenal. Plaintiff names the following 

individuals: R. Atienza, M.D.; I. Mathos, Nurse Practitioner (NP); D. Bonnheim, M.D.; M. 

Grande, RN; A. Kaleka, M.D.; S. Perkins, RN; Does 1-5. Plaintiff also names as a defendant 

California Correctional Health Care Services.2 Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to 

inadequate medical care such that it violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and 

unusual punishment. Plaintiff is also proceeding on a state law claim for negligence.

 

 

2

Plaintiff is advised that, as an agency of the State of California, California Correctional Health 

Care Services is immune from suit under section 1983. Natural Resources Defense Council v. California 

Department of Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Case 1:13-cv-01289-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 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

28 3

Plaintiff alleges that on February 2, 2012, he sought treatment for an injury that Plaintiff 

suffered while moving office equipment at his job assignment at Avenal. On February 14, 2012, 

Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Atienza and was told that he would be recommended for hernia surgery. 

Plaintiff was told to refrain from exercise while awaiting surgery. On April 12, 2012, Dr. 

Atienza “reiterated that he had recommended me for hernia surgery.” Dr. Atienza also 

prescribed Ibuprofen, Tylenol and Robaxin for pain. 

On April 13, 2012, Plaintiff appeared at pill line to get his medication. The person 

dispensing the medication told Plaintiff he could have the Ibuprofen and Tylenol, but not the 

Robaxin as it was an “as needed” prescription. Plaintiff was told to come back later in the day 

for that medication. When Plaintiff returned , there were approximately 60 people in line. 

Plaintiff was in too much pain to stand in line, so Plaintiff left.

Plaintiff alleges that “on numerous occasions” between April 12 and April 22,2012, he 

requested and was denied medication for his back pain. Plaintiff alleges that, as an example, on 

April 20, 2012, there were approximately 70 people in line. Plaintiff returned to his housing unit 

because it would be too painful to stand in line for that long. Plaintiff went back later in the 

evening, and made it to the pill window. The person dispensing the medication “showed me my 

medication and told me that I would have to come back tomorrow at five to get it – even after 

acknowledging my extreme pain.” 

On April 21, 2012, Plaintiff received a dose of Robaxin. On April 23, 2012, when 

Plaintiff went back for another dose, he was informed that his prescription had expired. The 

person at the window refused to give Plaintiff an expired dose. 

On June 13, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a health care request and was seen by Dr. Atienza 

the next day. Dr. Atienza told Plaintiff that he had again recommended him for surgery. On 

June 27, 2012, Dr. Bonnheim scheduled Plaintiff for the surgeries. On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff 

spoke with Defendant Mathos, who assured Plaintiff that he was scheduled for surgery. 

On July 11, 2012, Plaintiff was summoned by Defendant Bonnheim. He told Plaintiff 

that Defendant Mathos had “messed up the paperwork again.” Dr. Bonnheim assured Plaintiff 

Case 1:13-cv-01289-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 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

28 4

that he would be scheduled for surgery “soon.” On July 25, 2012, Dr. Atienza told Plaintiff that 

he had been approved for surgery “at least twice,” and he did not know why Plaintiff has not had 

the surgery yet. 

On November 6, 2012, Plaintiff was transported to the Correctional Medical Center 

where he underwent surgery. Dr. Bonnheim performed the surgery and prescribed Morphine for 

pain. Upon his return to Avenal, Defendants Kaleka and Grande changed the prescription from 

Morphine to Tylenol. On November 8, 2012, Plaintiff was informed by Mr. Hitchman (not 

named as a defendant) that Plaintiff “should not be up and walking around so much yet” and that 

there was nothing he could do about Plaintiff having to walk “great distances” to get food and 

medication. 

On November 9, 2012, Plaintiff walked approximately 1⁄4 of a mile to breakfast and to the 

clinic to get his pain medication. Plaintiff was told that he had to come back in half an hour to 

get his medication. Plaintiff was in too much pain to return a half hour later. 

On November 10, 2012, Plaintiff was in too much pain to go to breakfast or to the a.m. 

medication line. Plaintiff went to the medication line at noon and received Tylenol. The person 

dispensing the medication crushed the medication, put into a small cup of water and told Plaintiff 

to swallow it in front of him. Because Plaintiff had an empty stomach, he got sick. Plaintiff 

alleges that “I still experience pain and discomfort on both sides, i.e., where the surgery was 

performed and on my left side – where my hernia has still not been repaired.” 

A. Medical Care

“[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, 97 S.Ct. 295 (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. 

Case 1:13-cv-01289-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 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

28 5

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

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (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.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). 

Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to 

further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm‟rs, 766 

F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff does clearly set forth an 

objectively serious medical condition, but Plaintiff fails to specifically charge each of the 

individually named Defendants with specific conduct indicating that they personally engaged in 

conduct that constitutes deliberate indifference. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff 

must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived 

him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 

F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that 

person „does an affirmative act, participates in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an 

act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is 

made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite causal connection can be established not only 

by some kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a 

series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to 

inflict the constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically 

charged each defendant with conduct indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk 

to Plaintiff‟s health, resulting in injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable 

simply by alleging a serious medical condition and then charge defendants with the vague 

allegation that they neglected his condition. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each 

defendant was aware of a specific harm to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that 

Case 1:13-cv-01289-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 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

28 6

harm. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff 

will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Case 1:13-cv-01289-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 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

28 7

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01289-EPG Document 13 Filed 01/21/15 Page 7 of 7