Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06517/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06517-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUY MIRANDA,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6517 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

DR. KIM, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody

of the California Department of Corrections at CCI Tehachapi, brings this civil rights action

against defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at CCI

Tehachapi. Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to inadequate medical care. Plaintiff names

the following individual defendants: Medical Technical Assistant (MTA) Corranza; Dr. Kim,

M.D.; S. Whitlach, Appeals Coordinator.

In the first week of September, 2004, plaintiff went to the medical clinic with

complaints of stomach pain. MTA Corranza refused to let plaintiff see a physician, though

another MTA did allow plaintiff to see the on duty physician. The physician, Dr. Kim,

Case 1:04-cv-06517-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 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

2

prescribed medication for plaintiff’s condition. 

Plaintiff’s condition failed to improve, and he was seen again by a different

physician, who prescribed a different medication. This regime failed to work, and plaintiff was

seen again by Dr. Kim. Dr. Kim prescribed yet another medication. This medication was

causing stomach cramps and pain in plaintiff’s lower back area. During this appointment,

plaintiff “requested to be tested for the cause of his condition.” Plaintiff filed an inmate

grievance regarding his medical care. Defendant Whitlach failed to respond within the time set

by prison regulations. 

Section 1983 plainly 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 Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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 the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

As to plaintiff’s medical care, under the Eighth Amendment, the government has

an obligation to provide medical care to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). “In order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against

cruel and unusual punishment, there must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

of prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a twoprong approach to evaluating whether medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of

“deliberate indifference.” First, a court must examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were

serious. See Id. Second, a court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with

[the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id. at 1132.

Case 1:04-cv-06517-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Here, plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. Though Dr.

Kim’s treatment regimen failed to alleviate plaintiff’s symptoms, that is insufficient to hold Dr.

Kim liable for deliberate indifference. Dr. Kim responded to plaintiff’s condition with different

medications, indicating a reasonable response to plaintiff’s concern. . Even gross negligence is

insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). A prisoner’s mere disagreement with

diagnosis or treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891

F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that Dr. Kim knew of and

disregarded a serious risk to plaintiff’s health. 

As to MTA Corranza, plaintiff alleges that he denied plaintiff permission to see

the doctor. Plaintiff was, however, granted permission to see the doctor by another MTA. There

are no allegations that Corranza’s conduct caused plaintiff actual injury. 

As to defendant Whitlach, a failure to timely respond to an inmate grievance, of

itself, fails to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating

that Whitlach engaged in conduct that deprived plaintiff of a protected interest.

Because plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief, the

complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended

complaint. 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). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

Case 1:04-cv-06517-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 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

4

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, 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. 

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

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint"; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06517-REC-WMW Document 8 Filed 05/10/05 Page 4 of 4