Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04752/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04752-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GRANDE GRAJEDA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden;

MICHAEL SAYRE, M.D.; SUE

RISENHOOVER, F.N.P.; JOHN

KRAVITZ, CCII (A); MAUREEN

McLEAN, F.N.P.; J. FLOWERS, R.N.; 

and LINDA ROWE, M.D.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-4752 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE

This is a civil rights and medical malpractice case brought pro se by a state prisoner. 

The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend in the initial review order. Plaintiff has

amended. The court will now review the amended complaint to identify any cognizable

claims, and dismiss any claims which 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, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

DISCUSSION

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." "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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (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

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. 

Plaintiff was in a vehicle accident while in custody. At that time he was housed at

Corcoran State Prison. He suffered injuries to his face and hip. Metal plates were inserted

into his face at a hospital to deal with the facial injuries, but his hip injuries were left to be

treated by prison doctors. His hip injury was not treated, however. He subsequently was

transferred to Pelican Bay State Prison, which is in this district; the claims in the complaint

relate only to his care after he arrived at Pelican Bay.

Plaintiff claims that he has suffered from severe and continuing pain in his hips and

back for the last five years. He alleges that defendants Sayre and Risenhoover willfully and

maliciously deprived him of his cane and leg brace, despite knowing of his injuries. He also

asserts that Sayre refused to examine him, retaliated against him for filing grievances, and

failed to obtain his medical records. He contends that defendant McLean, although

informed of his ongoing medical needs by way of his grievances, failed to provide medical

care. These claims are sufficient to require a response from Sayre, Risenhoover, and

McLean. 

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Rowe was deliberately indifferent to a serious

medical need by not treating his acknowledged anemia for fourteen months. This is

sufficient to require a response.

Plaintiff also presents state law medical malpractice claims, to some extent echoing

the claims set out above, but also including respondeat superior and failure to supervise

claims against defendant Horel. The allegations are sufficient to require a response from

Sayre, Risenhoover, McLean, Rowe, and Horel. 

Plaintiff does not set out claims specific to defendants Kravitz and Flowers. They

will be dismissed from the case.

///

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

1. The claims against defendants Kravitz and Flowers are DISMISSED with

prejudice.

2. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,

without prepayment of fees, copies of the complaint with attachments and copies of this

order on the following defendants: Robert A. Horel, Warden; Michael Sayre, M.D.; Sue

Risenhoover, FNP.; Maureen Mclean, FNP; and Linda Rowe, M.D. Plaintiff states that they

can be found at Pelican Bay State Prison. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendants shall file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If defendants are of the opinion

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior

to the date their summary judgment motion is due. 

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,”

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th

Cir. 2003).

c. If defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen

days after the opposition is served upon them. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 

///

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendants, or

defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

5. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

of Change of Address.” He also 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\GRAJEDA4752.srv.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/25/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOTICE -- WARNING

(SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case

dismissed. 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 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 Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's 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.

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/25/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOTICE -- WARNING 

(EXHAUSTION)

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that

you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that

is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they

are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed

and there will be no trial.

Case 4:07-cv-04752-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/25/08 Page 6 of 6