Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00154/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00154-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WILT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. GREENLEAF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00154-BAM-PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE 

IN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s June 19, 2015, first amended complaint, filed in response 

to the May 28, 2015, order dismissing the original complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file 

an amended complaint.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on February 6, 2015. (ECF No. 5.)

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/02/16 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

2

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

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

1915(e)(2)(B).

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

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

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Mule Creek State Prison, brings this action against correctional 

officials employed by the CDCR at Avenal State Prison, where the events at issue occurred. 

Plaintiff names the following individuals as Defendants: Dr. Greenleaf, M.D.; S. Hitchman, 

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/02/16 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

3

M.D.; M. Boparai, M.D. Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

Plaintiff alleges that while incarcerated on a previous prison term, he was diagnosed with 

epilepsy, chronic low back pain, asthma and dyslipidemia. Plaintiff’s course of treatment 

included Morphine and Gabapentin. Plaintiff alleges that in 2013, while at Avenal, he was seen 

by Dr. Greenleaf, who was assigned as Plaintiff’s primary care physician. During Dr. 

Greenleaf’s initial evaluation of Plaintiff, he noted the inclusion of the record from Plaintiff’s 

previous term as well as Plaintiff’s limited mobility. As part of the examination, Plaintiff was 

directed to perform “basic movements.” Plaintiff “experienced and expressed severe pain in his 

extremities and lower back.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) Dr. Greenleaf explained to Plaintiff that he 

needed corrective surgery, which was unlikely, but that Plaintiff could be treated with pain 

medication. Dr. Greenleaf told Plaintiff that Morphine and Gabapentin were medically 

indicated. 

In November 2013, Plaintiff was informed, after a consultation with Defendant Chief 

Medical Executive Boparai, that the Morphine and Gabapentin prescriptions would be rescinded, 

due to a policy that they should only be prescribed in life-threatening situations. Plaintiff filed 

an inmate grievance regarding the rescission of the prescription. Plaintiff was interviewed by 

Defendant Dr. Hitchman. Dr. Hitchman “explained to plaintiff that he had previously spoken to 

Dr. Greenleaf and M. Boparai regarding his complaint and had already concluded that plaintiff 

was not in further need of treatment for his pain management. S. Hitchman also stated that 

because plaintiff was able to walk the short distance from his housing unit to the clinic without 

the use of a wheelchair, that his range of movement must be characterized as ‘typical and within 

normal limits.’” (Id. ¶ 14.) 

Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit to his original complaint a copy of the response to his 

inmate grievance from the Inmate Correspondence and Appeals Branch of California 

Correctional Health Care Services.2 The response is dated June 4, 2014, and indicates that on 

 

2 The Court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to 

in the complaint. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002); Steckman v. Hart Brewing, 143 F.3d 

1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/02/16 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

4

January 29, 2014, Plaintiff was evaluated by his primary care provider, who noted that Plaintiff’s 

back pain was improving. Plaintiff was seen by his primary care for other issues from March 3 

through May 7, 2014. On May 13, 2014, the primary care provider indicated that Plaintiff had 

physical therapy earlier in the year. The response indicates that Plaintiff is continuing to receive 

pain medications as deemed medically indicated by the primary care provider and that “it 

appears that there is no current evidence to indicate that the PCP determined your condition 

warrants morphine or gabapentin at this time.”

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Eighth Amendment 

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of 

“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006)(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The two part test for deliberate 

indifference requires 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. A defendant does not act in a deliberately indifferent 

manner unless the defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or 

safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal 

standard,” Simmons v. Navajo County Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010); Toguchi v. 

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is shown where there was “a purposeful act or 

failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need” and the indifference caused 

harm. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096.

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a 

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “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 

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/02/16 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

5

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106). “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing 

or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the 

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely 

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 

45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). 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). Additionally, 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).

Here, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs is unsupported by specific allegations of conduct by each Defendant that 

constitutes deliberate indifference. Plaintiff’s central claim is that he was denied Morphine and 

Gabapentin for his pain. The allegations of the complaint, however, do not indicate that 

Defendants failed to address Plaintiff’s medical concerns. As noted above, a disagreement over 

the course of Plaintiff’s treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference within the meaning 

of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s own exhibits indicate that he is continuing to receive pain 

medication, and that his primary care physician determined that his condition does not warrant 

Morphine or Gabapentin. Plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating that any of the Defendants 

knew of and disregarded a serious medical condition of Plaintiff’s. That Plaintiff believes that he 

should receive different pain medication does not constitute deliberate indifference. 

The standard for an Eighth Amendment medical care claim is high. Taking as true 

allegations that Defendants should have prescribed a different medication, Plaintiff has alleged, 

at most, negligence. As noted, even gross negligence is insufficient to state a claim for relief 

under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff must allege facts that support his conclusory allegation 

that each individual Defendant knew of an objectively serious medical condition of Plaintiff’s

and disregarded that condition. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that any of the 

individual Defendants were aware of a condition that, in the opinion of a medical professional, 

constituted a serious medical condition. The allegations of the first amended complaint indicate 

that Plaintiff was treated, that Plaintiff disagreed with the course of treatment, and he filed an 

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/02/16 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

6

inmate grievance. Such allegations fail to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment. 

The first amended complaint should therefore be dismissed. The Court will, however, grant 

Plaintiff one further opportunity to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies 

identified by this order. Plaintiff is again advised that he cannot state a claim by alleging facts 

indicating that he disagreed with a medical professional over the course of his treatment. 

Plaintiff must allege facts indicating deliberate indifference, as that term has been defined in this 

order.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint 

within thirty (30) days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may 

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

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

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

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each 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). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes 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 and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All 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. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/02/16 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

7

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed June 19, 2015, is dismissed for failure to 

state a claim;

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

second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure 

to state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00154-BAM Document 13 Filed 02/02/16 Page 7 of 7