Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00816/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00816-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OBIE CRISP,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:13 cv 00816 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding 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 or 

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 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 2

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Health Care Facility at Stockton, brings this civil rights 

action against defendant CDCR officials employed by the CDCR at Wasco State Prison. 

Plaintiff names as defendants Wasco State Prison and Correctional Officer J. Cleveland. 

Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to inadequate medical care such that it violated the Eighth 

Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 

Plaintiff is a morbidly obese inmate. Plaintiff appears the challenge the care that he 

received while he was housed at Wasco. Plaintiff alleges that his doctor prescribed certain care, 

including “mandated cleaning of my bottom area by CTC nurses or CNAs.” Plaintiff refers to a 

“shower protocol” and alleges deficiencies in assistance with his hygiene. Plaintiff refers to a 

panic button, and alleges that certain individuals failed to summon assistance. Plaintiff generally 

alleges “aggression, hostility, danger and or threat.” 

A. Medical Care

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an 

inmate must show „deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.‟” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 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 3

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). 

The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “„a serious medical 

need‟ by demonstrating that „failure to treat a prisoner‟s condition could result in further 

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,‟” and (2) “the defendant‟s 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting 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) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate 

indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible 

medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth generalized 

allegations regarding his health care, and names 1 individual defendant. To state a claim under 

section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) 

the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County 

of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person deprives another of a 

constitutional right, where that person „does an affirmative act, participates in another‟s 

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite 

causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in 

the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or 

reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting 

Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged Defendant Cleveland with conduct 

indicating that he knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s health, resulting in injury 

to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating that Defendant, a correctional officer, was 

responsible for any treatment of care of Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold Defendant liable simply 

by alleging a serious medical condition and then charge Defendant with the vague allegation that 

his condition was neglected. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each defendant was aware 

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 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 4

of a specific harm to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that harm. Plaintiff has 

failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be 

granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what Defendant did to violate the particular right described by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also names as a Defendant Wasco State Prison. “The Eleventh Amendment 

prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state. Though its 

language might suggest otherwise, the Eleventh Amendment has long been construed to extend 

to suits brought against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states.” 

Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991); see also

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer 

Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 

939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the 

state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. California 

Department of Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of 

Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles 

Community College District, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Wasco State Prison, an agency 

of the State of California, is therefore immune from suit.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 Page 4 of 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 5

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 Page 5 of 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 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:13-cv-00816-EPG Document 23 Filed 07/03/14 Page 6 of 6