Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00560/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00560-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A CHESTRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00560-VC 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Robert Chestra, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison proceeding pro se, filed a civil 

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Quentin Warden, Ron Davis; San 

Quentin Director of Health Care Services, J. Lewis; and California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation Secretary, Jeffrey Beard. Chestra has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, which is granted in a separate order. The Court now addresses the claims asserted in 

Chestra’s complaint. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

A federal court must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a 

governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, to dismiss any claims that: 

(1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or 

(3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 

699 (9th Cir. 1988).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 

Case 3:15-cv-00560-VC Document 4 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988). 

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the 

plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and proximately caused the 

deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corrections & 

Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 

1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of § 1983 if he does 

an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative act or fails to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d 

at 633. 

But there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074. That 

is, a supervisor is not liable merely because the supervisor is responsible, in general terms, for the 

actions of another. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Ybarra v. Reno 

Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may be 

liable only on a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a 

sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional 

violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). It is insufficient for a 

plaintiff to allege generally that supervisors knew about the constitutional violation or that they 

generally created policies and procedures that led to the violation, without alleging “a specific 

policy” or “a specific event” instigated by the supervisors that led to the constitutional violation. 

Hydrick v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012).

II. Chestra’s Allegations

Chestra’s complaint alleges the following:

Chestra was diagnosed with a bleeding arteriovenous malformation (“AVM”) while he was 

in state custody. Chestra was denied the required surgery for nine months. Due to this delay in 

treatment, Chestra’s right hand is paralyzed. If Chestra’s surgery had not been delayed, his hand 

would not be paralyzed. Chestra is suffering from emotional and mental problems as a result of 

the damage to his hand. 

Case 3:15-cv-00560-VC Document 4 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation based on the failure to attend to medical 

needs, a prisoner must allege both (1) a serious medical need and (2) deliberate indifference to that 

need by prison officials. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992). A prison 

official exhibits deliberate indifference when he knows of and disregards a substantial risk of 

serious harm to inmate health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official 

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

serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. 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. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Instead, deliberate indifference involves a purposeful act or failure to act. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 

1060. Deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally 

interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown in the way in which they provide medical 

care. Id. at 1062.

Liberally construed, Chestra’s complaint appears to satisfy Farmer’s objective prong by 

alleging that had AVM, which was not timely treated. However, even liberally construed, the 

complaint fails the satisfy Farmer’s subjective prong. First, the complaint is devoid of allegations 

against the three named defendants. Second, the named defendants appear to be supervisors, not 

the individuals who were directly responsible for delaying Chestra’s surgery. As stated above, 

there is no supervisorial or respondeat superior liability under § 1983; a supervisor is only liable if 

he had a personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or if there is a sufficient causal 

connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Chestra’s 

complaint does not allege this conduct by any of the named defendants. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Chestra’s Eighth Amendment claim against the named defendants for deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs is dismissed with leave to amend. 

2. Chestra may file an amended complaint remedying the deficiencies noted above within 

twenty-eight days from the date of this Order. In addition to remedying the allegations against the 

Case 3:15-cv-00560-VC Document 4 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

named defendants, Chestra may add additional defendants, if he can allege how they specifically 

denied, delayed or interfered in the medical treatment of his serious medical need. The amended 

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words 

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces 

the original complaint, Chestra must include in it all the allegations he wishes to present. See 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from 

the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the 

dismissal of this action.

3. It is Chestra’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Chestra must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of 

Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so 

may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00560-VC Document 4 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT A CHESTRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00560-VC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 4/9/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Robert A Chestra ID: T-93761

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: 4/9/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA

Case 3:15-cv-00560-VC Document 4 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 5