Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00261/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00261-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GUADALUPE DE HARO,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEVIN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 261 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Jose Guadalupe De Haro (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/22/06 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

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. RULE 8(a)

A plaintiff’s complaint must satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a), which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only

give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 

Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely

upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. Rule 8(a) also requires that

the plaintiff give notice of the relief which he seeks from the defendants.

In this case, the Complaint submitted by Plaintiff does not conform to Rule 8(a). 

Plaintiff's complaint consists of approximately 75 pages, including numerous exhibits. In

addition, as noted above, some of the Defendants named are not within this Court's jurisdiction.

Moreover, the Complaint does not set apart each claim for relief and each Defendant so the Court

can easily parse out the claims for relief. The Court, having literally hundreds of cases similar to

Plaintiff’s pending before it at any given time, cannot examine a lengthy complaint as it does not

have the resources to devote to such a task. 

C. VENUE

The federal venue statute required that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/22/06 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

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

In this case, only Defendants Suryadevara, Edger and Bhatt can be located within this

district. According to the Complaint, the remaining Defendants named are within the Southern

District of California. As such, venue is inappropriate as to those individuals. Pursuant to

federal and Local Rules, when the court finds that an action has not been commenced in the

proper court, it may transfer the action to the proper court or dismiss those Defendants and

claims from the action where venue is inappropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Local Rule 3-120(d).

In light of the need for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, the Court will not

recommend dismissal of these Defendants and Plaintiff can simply omit them from the Amended

Complaint to be submitted. 

D. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that while confined at Calipatria State Prison, his health was deteriorating

and he had been referred for a colonoscopy in March of 2004. Plaintiff states that he filed an

inmate appeal because of the delay in getting a colonoscopy. Plaintiff states that due to his not

getting prompt medical treatment, he began to have mental trauma in the form of anxiety attacks

and was placed on Paxil. Plaintiff states he began to get "retaliation" for having filed his appeals. 

Plaintiff states he was seen by a gastroenterologist who stated that there was nothing wrong with

him. Plaintiff stats that this was evidence of not addressing his medical concerns. Plaintiff states

that no one determined what his health crisis was and no intervention was taken to alleviate his

physical pain. Plaintiff states that he wrote to the Chief Medical Officer at Calipatria and that her

solution was to have Plaintiff transferred to SATF Corcoran. Plaintiff states that he wrote to

Defendant Levin telling him that if he felt Plaintiff's health needs could not be met at Calipatria,

he wanted a typewritten entry or fax to the receiving institution so that his health concerns could

have priority. Plaintiff states that his request was ignored. 

At Corcoran, Plaintiff asked Nurse Wofford if Defendant Levin had notified them of his

health concerns. Plaintiff was informed that no such written orders for examinations by

Defendant Levin were made. Plaintiff states that CMO Mr. Surya De Vara did not "go over"

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/22/06 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

Plaintiff's medical health file which should have been reviewed and Plaintiff continued to suffer. 

Plaintiff went to the health unit nine days later for "black out" spells and was told that there was

no doctor present. Although Plaintiff states he turned in medical request slips, medical personnel

did not acknowledge the serious of his medical need. Plaintiff states that he did not have food or

treatment because of his fainting spells. On October 14, 2004, he went to the yard clinic where he

saw Defendant Edgar and requested to see a physician. Defendant Edgar refused to bring "it" to

the attention of the attending physician and told Plaintiff looked pale and should come back on

Monday morning for medical attention. Ultimately, Plaintiff was transported to the prison

Treatment center where blood was drawn. Plaintiff was then transferred to Mercy Hospital

where he received a blood transfusion. Despite this, Plaintiff could not keep food down, began

to have abdominal pain and was bleeding during bowel movements. 

Plaintiff submitted a medical request slip and notified some state agencies of his health

issues hoping for assistance. Plaintiff visited the yard clinic on December 7, 2004, and was told

by Defendant Bhatt that he did not have his file and thus, was unaware of the findings at Mercy

Hospital. Plaintiff then complains that Defendant Bhatt does not make it a habit to review

medical records. Plaintiff states he filed more appeals but that the appeal process was not

functioning properly. Plaintiff states his condition was again acting up and that he requested that

Defendant Edgar arrange for him to see a doctor so samples can be taken. 

E. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute 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

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/22/06 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

(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 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

2. Eighth Amendment Medical Claim

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

punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference”

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than mere negligence, but less than

conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 

A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of

and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. 

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

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[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 v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v.

County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/22/06 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

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 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). 

In this case, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state sufficient facts giving rise to a cognizable

Eighth Amendment claim for relief. In fact, the nature of his entire complaint is unclear. 

Although Plaintiff complains that his medical concerns were untreated, he does not state facts

that give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. In addition, Plaintiff fails to link any of the named

defendants to an act or omission giving rise to a constitutional violation. 

F. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

time to file an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to do

so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each Defendant is involved. 

Further, 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). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/22/06 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

G. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN THIRTY (30) days

from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110 and for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00261-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 05/22/06 Page 7 of 7