Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00240/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

JOHN ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00240-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY

COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

ONLY ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT

MEDICAL CARE CLAIMS

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff John Anthony Hernandez (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal

actors. Plaintiff filed this action on February 18, 2005, and alleges that defendants Raymond

Andrews, Marth Spaeth, Janet Jowitt, and Sandra Murch, all of whom are or were employed at Taft

Correctional Institution, violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights during the time plaintiff was

incarcerated at TCI.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which governs proceedings in forma pauperis, provides that

“[n]otwithstanding 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 . . . fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted . . . .” 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

Case 1:05-cv-00240-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 09/21/05 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

prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon

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

see also 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 Hospital 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).

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

1. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claims

Plaintiff alleges that defendants delayed and denied treatment for his kidney condition, which

caused plaintiff to suffer extreme pain and a worsening of his kidney problems. To constitute cruel

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A

prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment

violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal civilized measure of

life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.’”

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732,

744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent

manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when

prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment,” or in the manner “in

which prison physicians provide medical care.” 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). 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, 974 F.2d at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison

Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00240-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 09/21/05 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

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to give rise to a claim for relief against defendants

Andrews, Spaeth, Jowitt, and Murch for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious

medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004);

Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). 

2. Eighth Amendment Claim Based on Inadequate Clothing

Although plaintiff does not specifically plead an Eighth Amendment claim for relief based

on the confiscation of his jacket during the winter, to the extent that plaintiff is attempting to purse

such a claim, it fails. “What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and

Unusual Punishment Clause depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S.

1, 8 (1992). “The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and

responsive to contemporary standards of decency.” Id. at 8 (quotations and citations omitted).

“[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment] conditions-ofconfinement claim.” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect to this type of claim, “[b]ecause

routine discomfort is part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society,

only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently

grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted).

After plaintiff’s jacket was confiscated, he went two weeks before being issued another

jacket. Plaintiff alleges that it was cold and rainy, and he was required to walk outdoors when he

went to work or school. Plaintiff further alleges that activities such as walking the track for exercise

were eliminated by not having a jacket. These allegations simply do not support an Eighth

Amendment violation, as the deprivation complained of, which was limited to two weeks, was not

an extreme one within the meaning of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. 

3. Retaliation Claims

Although plaintiff does not specifically plead a retaliation claim, plaintiff alleges in his

complaint twelve retaliatory incidents. (Comp., p. 31-32.) “Within the prison context, a viable

claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that [an actor]

Case 1:05-cv-00240-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 09/21/05 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

took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and

that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action

did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-

68 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of stating cognizable retaliation claims. Plaintiff

has not alleged any facts supporting a claim that he was retaliated against for protected conduct, that

the actions did not advance legitimate penological goals, or that his rights were chilled. Further, with

the exception of the conclusory allegation that defendant Andrews gave an order, plaintiff has not

alleged any facts linking any of the named defendants to the actions or omissions complained of.

C. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint contains a cognizable claim for relief against

defendants Andrews, Spaeth, Jowitt, and Murch for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, the court finds that

plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any other claims upon which relief may be granted. The court

will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if plaintiff wishes to do so.

If plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and wishes to proceed against

defendants Andrews, Spaeth, Jowitt, and Murch on his Eighth Amendment medical claim only,

plaintiff may so notify the court in writing. The court will then issue Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the remaining claims be dismissed from this action, and will

forward plaintiff four summonses and four USM-285 forms to fill out and return to the court. Upon

receipt of these documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of

process on defendants Andrews, Spaeth, Jowitt, and Murch.

In the event that plaintiff does wish to amend his complaint, plaintiff is advised Local Rule

15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00240-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 09/21/05 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

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy,

625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability unless there is some affirmative link or connection

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976);

May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

1978). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a Bivens complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff must either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the court in

this order, or

b. Notify the court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint

and wishes to proceed only against defendants on his Eighth Amendment

medical care claim; and

3. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00240-AWI -SMS Document 7 Filed 09/21/05 Page 5 of 5