Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00546/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00546-1/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

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DASHAWN WILSON COMBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. DEPORIE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00546-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint filed March 18, 2016, and transferred to this 

Court on April 18, 2016. 

I.

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. § 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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on April 29, 2016. (ECF No. 10.)

Case 1:16-cv-00546-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/23/16 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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

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

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

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

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Corcoran State Prison, brings this action against correctional officials 

employed by the CDCR at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Dr. J. 

Deporie; D. Sparks; L. Edmonds; J. Waller.2 Plaintiff also names as a Defendant the Mental 

Health Department. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have inadequately treated his mental health 

condition. 

Plaintiff is a correctional clinical case management system (CCCMS) inmate, part of the 

mental health delivery system in the CDCR. Plaintiff alleges that prior to his arrival at CSP 

Corcoran, he had a mental breakdown at Wasco State Prison. Plaintiff was admitted to the 

California Healthcare Facility at Stockton, and diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Plaintiff was 

prescribed medication and classified as “long term CCCMS.” (ECF No. 1, p. 5.) 

 

2

Plaintiff refers to Defendants Sparks and Edmonds as “ALCW.” The Court assumes Plaintiff is referencing the 

title of Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW.) Plaintiff refers to J. Waller as “PT.” The Court assumes Plaintiff 

is referencing the title of Psychiatric Technician.

Case 1:16-cv-00546-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/23/16 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 was transferred to CSP Corcoran on July 23, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that he was 

improperly housed, in that he was put in a building that did no cater to longer term CCCMS 

inmates. Plaintiff alleges that he was in a cell for over 6 months without proper care. Plaintiff 

did not have any appliances or books, and went out to yard “maybe three times a week.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that as a result, he suffered severe mental anguish. 

Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Deporie changed his medication on several occasions. Plaintiff 

told Dr. Deporie that the medications made him feel worse. Plaintiff was also seen monthly by 

Defendant Sparks. Plaintiff told her about his problem with getting the appropriate medications 

and his housing. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sparks did nothing to help. Defendant Sparks 

was replaced with Defendant Edmonds. Plaintiff explained his problems to Defendant 

Edmonds, with the same result. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Waller acknowledged that 

Plaintiff was receiving poor mental health treatment, and was aware that Plaintiff was 

inappropriately housed. 

 III.

DISCUSSION

A. Eighth Amendment

1. Mental Health Treatment

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to 

medical care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate‟s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 

Cir. 2012); overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th 

Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9ith Cir. 2006.) This rule applies to “physical, dental, and mental health.” Hoptowit 

v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 

515 U.S. 472 (1995); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746-48 (discussing prison officials‟ 

treatment of mentally ill inmates). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by 

demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the 

unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant‟s response to the need 

Case 1:16-cv-00546-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/23/16 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

was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The 

requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of 

due care. 

Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that suggest deliberate indifference to his mental 

health needs. Under the facts alleged, Defendants addressed Plaintiff‟s mental health concerns. 

Plaintiff has alleged, at most, a disagreement with the course of his treatment. “A difference of 

opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not 

give rise to a [section] 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) 

(internal citation omitted); accord Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23. To 

prevail, Plaintiff must allege facts that “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); accord Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88. Plaintiff has 

not alleged any facts indicating that Dr. Deporie was aware of objective medical information that 

the course of treatment she chose was medically unacceptable. A simple allegation that 

medication for Plaintiff‟s mental health made him feel worse is not, of itself, sufficient to state a 

claim for deliberate indifference. Plaintiff‟s claim regarding his mental health treatment should 

therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

2. Conditions of Confinement 

The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041. 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)) 

(quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive 

and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 

F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which 

are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or contrary to evolving standards of decency that 

mark the progress of a maturing society violate the Eighth Amendment. Id.; Hope v. Pelzer, 536 

Case 1:16-cv-00546-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/23/16 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

U.S. 730 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346.

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains 

while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks 

and citations omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that 

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. 

Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 

731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that he was subjected to conditions of 

confinement that violate the Eighth Amendment, as described above. That Plaintiff did not have 

appliances or books for six months, or that he only had yard access a few times a week, does not 

constitute deliberate indifferent to a substantial risk to his harm or safety. That Plaintiff believes 

his mental condition was caused by the deprivations that he complains of does not subject 

Defendants to liability. Plaintiff does not allege any facts indicating that a medical professional 

diagnosed him with mental or physical injury as a result of not having appliances or books, or 

only having yard access a few times a week. This claim should therefore be dismissed.

B. Coleman Class Action

In his statement of claim, Plaintiff refers to the Coleman class action. Specifically, 

Plaintiff claims that “me being a long term „CCCMS‟ patient who suffers from bipolar disorder 

and ADHD since a child is entitled to the benefits of the „Coleman case‟ which I did not 

receive.” Individual suits for injunctive and equitable relief from alleged unconstitutional prison 

conditions cannot be brought where there is a pending class action suit involving the same 

subject matter. McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991); Gillespie v. Crawford, 

858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc). “Individual members of the class and other 

prisoners may assert any equitable or declaratory claims they have, but they must do so by 

urging further actions through class action.” Id. Any asserted requests for injunctive relief 

Case 1:16-cv-00546-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/23/16 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

should therefore be dismissed. If Plaintiff wants to complain about a perceived failure to comply 

with the order in Coleman, he may contact the plaintiff‟s class counsel.3

C. Mental Health Department

“The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an 

unconsenting state. Though its language might suggest otherwise, the Eleventh Amendment has 

long been construed to extend to suits brought against a state by its own citizens, as well as by 

citizens of other states.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 

(9th Cir. 1991); see also Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Puerto Rico 

Aqueduct Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State 

Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 67, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the 

state itself is named as a defendant. Natural Resources Defense Council v. California 

Department of Transporation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (ith Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of 

Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles 

Community College District, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). The Mental Health 

Department, an entity of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is 

therefore immune from suit. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

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

 

3 The Court assumes Plaintiff is referring to rulings under Coleman v. Brown, No. 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB, a class 

action concerning mental health care in California‟s prisons. Counsel for the plaintiff class in Coleman is Donald H. 

Specter at the Prison Law Office, General Delivery, San Quentin, CA 94964. 

Case 1:16-cv-00546-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/23/16 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

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

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as 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).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes 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 and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All 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. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed March 18, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

a first amended complaint; and

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

Court will dismiss this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to 

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00546-SAB Document 13 Filed 08/23/16 Page 7 of 7