Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01253/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01253-2/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 

. ' "I 1 

, ... t, ....r''"','' ". t' . " I l 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEAN A. SCHWARTZMILLER, et al. Civil No. 13cv1253 WQH (NLS) 
 CDCR #F-67490 

Plaintiffs, ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS 

BALLINGER, CATES, GASPER, 

RODGERS; 

vs. 

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; 

(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et aI., FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) 

Defendants. 

I. Procedural History 

On April 9, 2013, Dean Schwartzmiller, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD"), and proceeding in pro se, filed this action in 

the Northern District of California on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of four other 

inmates. (ECF No.1.) Plaintiff Schwartzmiller is the only named Plaintiff to file a Motion to 

1:IChambers HayeslFranklEdited Pro Se OrdersI13cvI253-Dismiss.wpd 1 13cv1 325 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 7
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 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP) which was granted by United States District Judge Richard 

Seeborg on May 7,2013. (ECF No.5.) In addition, District Judge Seeborg dismissed the entire 

action on the grounds that Plaintiff was attempting to intervene in the P lata matter and instructed 

Plaintiff to file a motion to intervene in that matter. (ECF No.6.) On May 23,2013, Plaintiff 

Schwartzmiller filed a "Motion to Alter Judgment" to clarify that the Plaintiffs did not seek 

intervention in the Plata matter because they were seeking money damages. (ECF No.8.) 

District Judge Seeborg granted Plaintiff's Motion and transferred this matter to the Southern 

District of California on May 28,2013. (ECF No.9.) 

After the matter was transferred to this Court, Plaintiff Schwartzmiller filed a Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 12.) 

II. DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS 

As an initial matter, Plaintiff Schwartzmiller purports to also bring this action on behalf 

of himself and inmates Ballinger, Cates, Gasper and Rodgers. However, because Plaintiff 

Schwartzmiller is proceeding pro se, he has no authority to represent the legal interest of any 

other party. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.l (9th Cir. 1995); C.E. Pope Equity 

Trustv. United States, 818 F.2d 696,697 (9th Cir. 1987); see also FED.R.CIV.P. II(a) ("Every 

pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the 

attorney's original name, or if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the 

party."). Here, only Plaintiff Schwartzmiller has filed a Motion to Proceed IFP. Accordingly, 

the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs Ballinger, Cates, Gasper and Rodgers from this action. 

However, this dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiffs Ballinger, Cates, Gasper and Rodgers 

filing separate actions, along with a Motion to Proceed IFP. 

III. Ex PARTE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 65(a). 

(ECF No. 12.) Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "the court may 

issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party." FED.R.CIV.P.65(a). As a 

preliminary matter, Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction does not comply with Rule 65(a)'s 

important procedural notice requirement. Here, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his 

I:\Charnhers HayeslFrank\Edited Pm So Orders\I3cvl 253-Dimliss.wpd 2 13cvl325 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 7
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 

Complaint, or his Motion have been served on any named Defendant. 

Thus, Plaintiff's Motion does not comply with this elemental procedural requirement of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65( a). Thus, the Court must DENY, without prejudice, 

Plaintiff's Motion pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 65(a). 

IV. SCREENING PuRSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") obligates the Court to review complaints 

filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained 

in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of 

criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary 

program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). 

Under these provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any 

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages 

from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2»; Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 

443,446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th 

Cir. 1998) (discussing § 1915A). 

"[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff." Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2) 

"parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). In addition, the Court's 

duty to liberally construe a pro se's pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 

839 F.2d 621,623 (9th Cir. 1988), is "particularly important in civil rights cases." Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). However, in giving liberal interpretation to a 

pro se civil rights complaint, the court may not "supply essential elements of claims that were 

not initially pled." Ivey v. Board ofRegents ofthe University ofAlaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1982). "Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 

are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss." Id. 

J:\Chambers HayeslFranklEdited Pro Se Ordersll3cvl2'i3-Dismiss.wpd 3 13cv 1325 WQH (Nts) 

III 

Case 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 7
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 

A. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability 

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person 

acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived 

the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the 

United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637,124 S. Ct. 2117, 2122 

(2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 

B. Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claims 

Plaintiff alleges that some of the named Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (See Compl. at 11-13) 

Where an inmate's claim is one of inadequate medical care, the inmate must allege "acts 

or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Such a claim has two elements: "the seriousness 

of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need." 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by WMX 

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997). A medical need is serious "if the 

failure to treat the prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the 

'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'" McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 

U.S. at 104). Indications of a serious medical need include "the presence of a medical condition 

that significantly affects an individual's daily activities." Id. at 1059-60. By establishing the 

existence of a serious medical need, an inmate satisfies the objective requirement for proving 

an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, or 

intentionally interfere with a prescribed course of medical treatment, or it may be shown by the 

way in which prison medical officials provide necessary care. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 

F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988). Before it can be said that a inmate's civil rights have been 

abridged with regard to medical care, however, "the indifference to his medical needs must be 

substantial. Mere 'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this 

cause of action." Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458,460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing 

1:\Cbambers HayeslFranklEdited Pro Se Orders\l3cvl253-Disrniss.wpd 4 13cv1325 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/28/13 Page 4 of 7
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 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). See also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, Plaintiff disagrees with the prescription medication the Defendants provided for his 

back pain. (See Compl. at 11-13.) However, a mere difference of opinion between an inmate 

and prison medical personnel regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment are not 

enough to establish a deliberate indifference claim. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F .2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 

1989), 

Thus, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claims are dismissed for 

failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

c. Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the ADA by failing to supply him with "TV 

cable hookup" in his cell. (Compl. at 14.) Title II of the ADA broadly prohibits discrimination 

by public entities against individuals with disabilities: "[N]o qualified individual with a 

disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the 

benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be SUbjected to 

discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The prohibitions of the ADA apply to 

state prisons. See Pennsylvania Dep't ofCorrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 118 S. Ct. 1952, 

1954 (1998); Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The Ninth Circuit set out the elements of a claim under Title II of the ADA in Thompson 

v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2002): 

To state a claim of disability discrimination under Title II, the plaintiff must allege four 

elements: (1) the plaintiff is an individual with a disability; (2) the plaintiff is otherwise 

qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some pubhc entity's services, 

programs, or activities; (3) the plaintiff was either excluded from participation in or 

uemed the benefits of the public entity's services, pro~ams, or activitIes, or was 

otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of 

benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff's disability. 

Id. at 895 (citing Weinrieich v. LA. County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976,978 (9th Cir. 

1997)). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts sufficient to show that a "tv cable hookup" is a 

"service, program or activity" provided by the prison and he fails to set forth any facts to show 

that he was denied these accommodations because of his disability. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 

claims brought pursuant to the ADA are dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief 

I:\Chambers HayeslFranklEdited Pro Se Orders\l3cvl253-Dismiss.wpd 5 Bev1325 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/28/13 Page 5 of 7
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 

may be granted. 

D. Respondeat Superior claims 

Plaintiff names Governor Jerry Brown and Warden Daniel Paramo as Defendants in this 

matter but fails to set forth any specific factual allegations with regard to these Defendants in 

the body of Plaintiff's Complaint. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to hold these Defendants 

liable in their supervisory capacity. However, there is no respondeat superior liability under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1993). Instead, "[t]he 

inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities ofeach 

individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional 

deprivation." Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,633 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 

U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976)). In order to avoid the respondeat superior bar, Plaintiff must allege 

personal acts by each individual Defendant which have a direct causal connection to the 

constitutional violation at issue. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Supervisory prison officials may only be held liable for the allegedly unconstitutional 

violations of a subordinate if Plaintiff sets forth allegations which show: (1) how or to what 

extent they personally participated in or directed a subordinate's actions, and (2) in either acting 

or failing to act, they were an actual and proximate cause of the deprivation of Plaintiff's 

constitutional rights. Johnson v. DuffY, 588 F.2d 740,743 (9th Cir. 1978). Ascurrentlypleaded, 

however, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to set forth facts which might be liberally construed to 

support an individualized constitutional claim against Defendants Brown or Paramo. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a section 1983 claim 

upon which relief may be granted, and is therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(b) & 1915A(b). The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend 

his pleading to cure the defects set forth above. Plaintiff is warned that ifhis amended complaint 

fails to address the deficiencies of pleading noted above, itmay be dismissed with prejudice and 

without leave to amend. Plaintiff is also cautioned that his Amended Complaint cannot include 

claims relating to other inmates. 

/ / / 

1:\Chambers H.yes\FranklEdited Pro Se Qrders\l3cvl253·rn.smiss.wpd 6 13cv1325 WQH (NLS) 

Case 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/28/13 Page 6 of 7
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 

V. 	 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs Ballinger, Cates, Gasper and Rodgers are DISMISSED from this action. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a form civil rights complaint and form Motion to ?roceed 

IFP to Plaintiffs Ballinger, Cates, Gasper and Rodgers. 

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice 

pursuant to FED.R.CN.P. 65(a)(1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

3. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is GRANTED forty five (45) days leave 

from the date this Order is "Filed" in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures all 

the deficiencies of pleading noted above. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be complete in 

itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See S.D. CaL Civ. L. R. 15.1. Defendants 

not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been 

waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,567 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, if Plaintiff's Amended 

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without 

further leave to amend and may hereafter be counted as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996). 

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a court approved form § 1983 complaint to 

Plaintiff Schwartzmiller. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

1:lOwnbers Hal"'slFranlclEdited Pro Se OrdersI13cvl253-Dismiss.wpd 7 	 13cv1325 WQH (Nl 

I 

Case 3:13-cv-01253-WQH-NLS Document 13 Filed 06/28/13 Page 7 of 7