Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04760/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04760-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAM WONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOY KICK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04760-JST 

ORDER SCREENING THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff, an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”) in 

Martinez, California, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he 

was denied necessary medical treatment for his eye ailments and pain. See Docket No. 1. 

On April 17, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that, 

liberally construed, it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims under Section 1983 for 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Docket No. 7 at 2–3. The Court ordered 

service on five named nurse defendants and an unnamed doctor. Ultimately, the following 

defendants were served: Nurse Joy Kick, Nurse Harjinder Dhanoa, Nurse Maricel De Los 

Angeles, Nurse Eltra Sheppard; and Dr. Dennis McBride. See, e.g., Docket No. 21. 

On August 6, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint 

(“SAC”), but dismissed the SAC with leave to amend to correct certain deficiencies. See Docket 

No. 49 at 2, 3–4 and 6–7. Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint (Docket No. 51), which is 

now the operative pleading and is before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

//

//

//

Case 3:14-cv-04760-JST Document 57 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any 

claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a 

plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . 

. . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Analysis

The third amended complaint completely replaces the prior complaints. Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). As in the prior complaints, Plaintiff alleges in his 

third amended complaint that defendants MDF staff nurses Kick, Dhanoa, De Los Angeles, and 

Sheppard and MDF staff physician McBride failed to provide him necessary treatment and 

Case 3:14-cv-04760-JST Document 57 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

medication for his eye ailments. These allegations were already found sufficient to state a 

cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment, and these defendants have already been served.

Plaintiff names as additional defendants Contra Costa County, County Administrator 

David Twa in his individual capacity, and MDF Health Administrator Sam Rosales in his 

individual capacity. Plaintiff alleges that Contra Costa County’s policy of referring out inmate 

optometry issues to Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, at outside hospital, has resulted in 

inmates regularly waiting excessive amounts of time before receiving optometrical treatment. See

Docket No. 51 at 3. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Rosales was aware of the policy and its 

negative effects on inmates’ optometrical treatment, and failed to supervise and properly train 

MDF’s medical staff to provide appropriate medical care when inmates request pain medication. 

See id. at 3–4. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Rosales and Twa condoned this policy by 

promulgating this policy and allowing the policy to exist. See id. at 4. 

To impose liability under Section 1983 against a municipal entity such as Contra Costa

County for a violation of constitutional rights, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the plaintiff 

possessed a constitutional right of which he or she was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a 

policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; 

and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Plumeau v. School 

Dist. No. 40 County of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997); see Monell v. Dep’t of Social 

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 “even without 

overt personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so 

deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of 

the constitutional violation.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.

1991) (en banc), (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836–

38 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Liberally construed, the third amended complaint adequately alleges a Section 1983 claim 

against Contra Costa County and against MDF Health Administrator Rosales and County 

Administrator Twa for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. 

Case 3:14-cv-04760-JST Document 57 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, a copy of the third amended complaint (Docket No. 51), and a copy of this 

order upon Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County Administrator David Twa, MDF Health 

Administrator Sam Rosales. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this order is filed, Defendants must file 

and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. A motion for summary 

judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and 

adequate notice of what is required of him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 

F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th 

Cir. 1998), must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). 

If Defendants are of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary 

judgment, Defendants must so inform the Court prior to the date the motion is due. 

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the 

motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 

provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the 

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

hearing will be held on the motion. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must 

do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be 

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about 

any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing 

Case 3:14-cv-04760-JST Document 57 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out 

specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, 

as provided in [current Rule 56(c)], that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations 

and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not 

submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered 

against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no 

trial. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

(The Rand notice above does not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve said notice again 

concurrently with a motion for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

4. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants’ 

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until Defendants’ 

counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to 

Defendants, but once Defendants are represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 

counsel rather than directly to Defendants.

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the 

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

7. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 

to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

//

//

Case 3:14-cv-04760-JST Document 57 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 6
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

8. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04760-JST Document 57 Filed 01/07/16 Page 6 of 6