Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02044-10/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

 Defendant Runnels has not appeared in the action, although a waiver of service was

1

signed on his behalf on April 5, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2044 LKK JFM P

vs.

NORMAN BARON, C.M.O., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 3, 2005, this court order service of process for

claims raised in plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint on four defendants named in that pleading,

defendants Runnels, Roche, Rohlfing and James. Defendants James, Roche, and Rohlfing were

served with process and appeared in this action through a motion to dismiss.

1

By order filed February 2, 2007, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and

plaintiff was given leave to file a fifth amended complaint. By order filed February 7, 2008,

plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted forty-five days in

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 04/09/08 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

which to file a sixth amended complaint. On March 5, 2008, plaintiff timely filed a sixth

amended complaint. 

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

In accordance with the court’s February 2, 2007 order, plaintiff is proceeding in

this action on a claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated in connection with his

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 04/09/08 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

request, made following his transfer to High Desert State Prison, for a special shoe chrono for

back support, physical therapy and possible TENS treatment for neck and back pain. See Order

filed February 2, 2007, at 5, 9. 

Plaintiff names nine defendants in the fifth amended complaint, Chief Medical

Officer N. Baron, S. M. Roche, Dr. M. Watson, Lt. Howard, Dr. Glenn James, Dr. R. Cox, N.

Grannis, Dr. Rohlfing, and D. L. Runnels. and Dr. Dial. Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. James, Dr.

Cox, and Dr. Rohlfing are based on events that occurred after this action was filed. Pursuant to

the February 2, 2007 order, plaintiff may not proceed with those claims in this action. For that

reason, Drs. James,, Cox, and Rohlfing will not be required to answer the sixth amended

complaint.

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

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. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 04/09/08 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

 Because the sixth amended complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief 2

against defendant Runnels, the court will not take any action sua sponte on defendant Runnels’

failure to respond to the fourth amended complaint. 

4

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). 

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant D. L. Runnels are based solely on said

defendant’s supervisorial role as the Warden of High Desert State Prison at the time of the events

complained of. The allegations are insufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief against

defendant Runnels. Defendant Runnels will not, therefore, be required to respond to the sixth

amended complaint.

2

The sixth amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against the

remaining named defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the

allegations of the sixth amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to

prevail on the merits of this action.

On March 3, 2008 and March 6, 2008, plaintiff filed documents styled as motions

for protective orders. The motions contain allegations concerning plaintiff’s lack of access to

legal materials and to his medical records and the attendant impacts on his ability to prosecute

this action. Good cause appearing, defendant Roche will be directed to file and serve a response

to these motions within twenty days.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: N. Baron; Dr. M. Watson;

Lt. Howard; and N. Grannis;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four USM-285 forms, one

summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the sixth amended complaint filed March 5, 2008;

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 04/09/08 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

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Five copies of the endorsed sixth amended complaint filed March 5,

2008.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

5. Within twenty days from the date of this order defendant Roche shall file and

serve a response to plaintiff’s sixth amended complaint.

6. Within twenty days from the date of this order defendant Roche shall file and

serve a response to plaintiff’s March 3, 2008 and March 6, 2008 motions.

DATED: April 8, 2008.

12

will2044.6tham

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 04/09/08 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2044 LKK JFM P

vs.

NORMAN BARON, C.M.O., et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Sixth Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 73 Filed 04/09/08 Page 6 of 6