Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01396/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01396-0/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

GABRIEL CANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01396-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Doc. 1) 

I. Background

Plaintiff, Gabriel Cano, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action 

on September 8, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

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, malicious, 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); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). 

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 1 of 9
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

B. Summary of Plaintiff=s Complaint

Plaintiff complains of incidents that occurred at California State Prison - Corcoran ("CSPCor") in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Warden Smith, CSPCor "Pain Committee," Dr. Conall, Dr. Gill, Dr. Jeffrey Wang, Teresa Macias, and Zamora. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff alleges that he has a history of lower back pain and has been given the 

prescription pain killer Tramadol by numerous physicians. Plaintiff complains of acts that 

occurred from October 14, 2012 through October of 2013 wherein he was given Ibuprofen and no 

longer allowed to receive Tramadol for his lower back pain.

After reviewing the complaint, the Court concludes Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable 

claims but may be able to correct the deficiencies to do so. Thus, he is given the applicable 

standards for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eight Amendment and 

leave to file a first amended complaint. 

C. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

"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. Pro. 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. Pro. 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). 

"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 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 2 of 9
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

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[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), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual 

allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557. While 

Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949,

977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally and are afforded 

the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). However, courts are 

not required to indulge unwarranted inferences. Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 

681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a 

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

defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 

S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

If he chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should endeavor to make it as 

concise as possible and under twenty-five pages in length. He should merely state which of his 

constitutional rights he feels were violated by each Defendant and its factual basis. 

2. 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 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that A[a] person >subjects= another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 3 of 9
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

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. 

Plaintiff fails to link Warden Smith, Dr. Gill, and Teresa Macias to any of his allegations. 

Plaintiff must clearly state which Defendant(s) he feels are responsible for each violation of his 

constitutional rights and their factual basis as his complaint must put each Defendant on notice of 

Plaintiff=s claims against him or her. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004).

3. Exhibits

Plaintiff's Complaint is comprised of five pages of factual allegations followed by thirty 

pages of exhibits. The Court is not a repository for the parties' evidence. Originals, or copies of 

evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness affidavits, etc.) need not be submitted until the 

course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary 

judgment, at trial, or when requested by the Court). If Plaintiff attaches exhibits to his amended 

complaint, each exhibit must be specifically referenced. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c). For example, 

Plaintiff must state "see Exhibit A" or something similar in order to direct the Court to the 

specific exhibit Plaintiff is referencing. Further, if the exhibit consists of more than one page, 

Plaintiff must reference the specific page of the exhibit (i.e. "See Exhibit A, page 3"). 

At this point, the submission of evidence is premature as Plaintiff is only required to state 

a prima facie claim for relief. Plaintiff is reminded that, for screening purposes, the Court must 

assume that Plaintiff=s factual allegations are true. It is unnecessary for a plaintiff to submit 

exhibits in support of the allegations in a complaint. Thus, if Plaintiff chooses to file a first 

amended complaint, he would do well to simply state the facts upon which he alleges a Defendant 

has violated his constitutional rights and refrain from submitting exhibits. 

D. Claims for Relief

1. Eighth Amendment -- Medical Care

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must 

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 4 of 9
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

first Ashow 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. Second, 

the plaintiff must show the defendants= response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). 

The existence of a condition or injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and 

worthy of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 

individual=s daily activities, and the existence of chronic or substantial pain are indications of a 

serious medical need. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. 

v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)) (quotation marks omitted); Doty v. 

County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994). For screening purposes, Plaintiff's lower 

back pain is accepted as a serious medical need. 

Deliberate indifference is Aa state of mind more blameworthy than negligence@ and 

Arequires >more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner=s interests or safety.=@ Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 835 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319). ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004). AUnder this standard, the prison official 

must not only >be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 

risk of serious harm exists,= but that person >must also draw the inference.=@ Id. at 1057 (quoting 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). A>If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, 

then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.=@ Id.

(quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

Plaintiff has failed to allege anything more than a difference of opinion between him and 

the prison medical staff regarding the proper pain medication for his lower back pain. This is 

insufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment violation. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 

97, 107 (1976). 

2. Inmate Appeals

It appears that Plaintiff intends to grieve the actions of Dr. McCabe, Dr. Wang, and L. 

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 5 of 9
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

Zamora for their involvement in the processing and reviewing of his 602 inmate appeals related to 

the medication he was to receive for his lower back pain. 

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty without due 

process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of action 

for deprivation of due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty interest for 

which the protection is sought. "States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests 

which are protected by the Due Process Clause." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). 

Liberty interests created by state law are generally limited to freedom from restraint which 

"imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of 

prison life." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. 

"[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any 

substantive right upon the inmates." Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing 

Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 

850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a 

specific grievance procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of 

grievance procedure confers no liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 

(9th Cir. 1988). "Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest requiring the 

procedural protections envisioned by the Fourteenth Amendment." Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. 

Supp. at 10; Spencer v. Moore, 638 F. Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986). 

Actions in reviewing prisoner's administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability 

under a § 1983 action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. The argument that anyone who knows about a 

violation of the Constitution, and fails to cure it, has violated the Constitution himself is not 

correct. "Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are responsible. Ruling against 

a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation. A guard 

who stands and watches while another guard beats a prisoner violates the Constitution; a guard 

who rejects an administrative complaint about a completed act of misconduct does not." George 

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) citing Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 656-57 (7th 

Cir.2005); Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 851-52 (7th Cir.1999); Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 6 of 9
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

992-93 (7th Cir.1996). Thus, since he has neither a liberty interest, nor a substantive right in 

inmate appeals, Plaintiff fails, and is unable to prove the elements of a constitutional violation 

purely for the processing and/or reviewing of his inmate appeals. 

However, Plaintiff may be able to prove the elements for a claim under the Eight 

Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against those medical 

personnel who were involved in reviewing his inmate appeals. If Plaintiff meets his burden of 

proof as to the elements of a claim against a defendant for deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical needs, he will likely also be able to meet his burden of proof as to the elements of a claim 

against defendants with medical training if they reviewed and ruled against Plaintiff in his 

medical grievances/appeals on that same issue. 

3. Supervisory Liability

It appears that Plaintiff named some Defendants not because they were involved in his 

medical care, but merely because they hold supervisorial positions at CSP-Cor and/or CDCR.

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their 

employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a 

supervisory position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be 

specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 

589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief 

under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts that 

would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the alleged 

deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or 

promulgated or "implemented a policy so deficient that the policy 'itself is a repudiation of 

constitutional rights' and is 'the moving force of the constitutional violation.'" Hansen v. Black, 

885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989). Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for 

the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. "In 

a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action - where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants - the 

term 'supervisory liability' is a misnomer." Id. Knowledge and acquiescence of a subordinate's 

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 7 of 9
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

8

misconduct is insufficient to establish liability; each government official is only liable for his or 

her own misconduct. Id. 

A>[B]are assertions . . . amount[ing] to nothing more than a Aformulaic recitation of the

elements@ of a constitutional discrimination claim,= for the purposes of ruling on a motion to 

dismiss [and thus also for screening purposes], are not entitled to an assumption of truth.@ Moss, 

572 F.3d at 969 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1951 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). ASuch 

allegations are not to be discounted because they are >unrealistic or nonsensical,= but rather 

because they do nothing more than state a legal conclusion B even if that conclusion is cast in the 

form of a factual allegation.@ Id. 

Thus, any allegations that supervisory personnel such as a Warden or the CDCR Chief 

Medical Officer violated Plaintiff's rights and are somehow liable because of the acts of those 

under his or her supervision does not state a cognizable claim. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with leave to file a first

amended complaint within thirty days. If Plaintiff needs an extension of time to comply with this 

order, Plaintiff shall file a motion seeking an extension of time no later than thirty days from the 

date of service of this order.

Plaintiff must demonstrate in any first amended complaint 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). The first amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under section 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).

Plaintiff's first amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Such a short and 

plain statement must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) quoting Conley v. 

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Although accepted as true, the "[f]actual allegations must be 

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 8 of 9
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

9

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. 127, 555 

(2007) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original, Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 

2012) (en banc), and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading," Local Rule 220. 

The Court provides Plaintiff with opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified 

by the Court in this order. 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 first amended 

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

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk's Office is directed to send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01396-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 10/02/14 Page 9 of 9