Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01021/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01021-1/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

JAMES ARTHUR MOOREHEAD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RALPH M. DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 01021 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 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 August 4, 2014 (ECF No. 10).

Case 1:14-cv-01021-GSA Document 12 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 5
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

This action proceeds on the August 14, 1014, first amended complaint. Plaintiff, 

formerly an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR) at Corcoran State Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendant CDCR 

officials employed by the CDCR at Corcoran. Plaintiff names several medical officials as

defendants. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts or charge any of the named defendants with any 

particular conduct. Plaintiff attaches as exhibits to his complaint copies of documents from his 

medical record. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not consider documents attached to the 

complaint in order to make the complaint complete. Plaintiff must allege all facts in support of 

his claims in the complaint. Plaintiff is advised of the following legal standards. 

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)). 

Case 1:14-cv-01021-GSA Document 12 Filed 02/26/15 Page 2 of 5
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

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, 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)). 

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 

Case 1:14-cv-01021-GSA Document 12 Filed 02/26/15 Page 3 of 5
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

to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that 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 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 first amended 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01021-GSA Document 12 Filed 02/26/15 Page 4 of 5
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

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

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

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

1. Plaintiff‟s first amended 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 a

second 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 dismiss

this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01021-GSA Document 12 Filed 02/26/15 Page 5 of 5