Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00747/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00747-2/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

JAMISI J. CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. AKANNO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00747-SAB-PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

EITHER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS 

TO PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS

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 first amended complaint, filed December 18, 2014.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 The first amended complaint was filed in response to the December 4, 2014, order 

dismissing the original complaint and granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. In 

the order addressing the original complaint, the Court noted the following allegations. 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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on June 3, 2013. (ECF No. 8.)

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Kern Valley State Prison, where the events at 

issue occurred.2Plaintiff set forth Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs and failure to protect.

Plaintiff‟s allegations stem from his treatment for renal disease. The complaint set forth 

vague, rambling complaints about various aspects of Plaintiff‟s treatment. Plaintiff alleged that 

Defendants neglected to send him to an adequate treatment facility. Plaintiff also alleged that 

Defendants subjected him to valley fever. Plaintiff alleged that he had not been provided with a 

proper diet. Plaintiff alleged that he was inadequately housed, was forced to walk to dialysis in 

the rain, and that this hemodialysis treatment was terminated. 

Plaintiff alleged that on July 13, 2011, Dr. Akanno refused to send Plaintiff to an outside 

hospital for an “emergency declotting.” On July 14, 2011, Plaintiff reported to the Licensed 

Vocational Nurse (LVN) that his dialysis access port was clogged. Plaintiff was sent to the A 

Yard clinic. Dr. Akanno told Plaintiff that he just needed to take his psychiatric medication and 

that nothing was wrong with his dialysis access port. On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff appeared for his 

hemodialysis treatment. Plaintiff was told by the nurse that his access port was clogged. 

Plaintiff was sent out for a procedure to unclog the port.

Plaintiff also alleged deficient medical care regarding treatment for a broken leg. On 

September 18, 2012, Plaintiff injured his left leg. It was eventually determined that the leg was 

fractured, requiring surgery to fuse bones together with a plate. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. 

Akanno. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Akanno refused to order an x-ray and told Plaintiff “it was 

nothing.” Dr. Akanno ordered Plaintiff to leave the clinic. Plaintiff alleged that his leg was 

“swollen three times its size.” Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Akanno refused to treat Plaintiff or 

provide him with any mobility devices. A correctional officer gave Plaintiff a wheelchair and 

escorted Plaintiff back to his cell. 

The next day, Plaintiff underwent an x-ray which revealed the fractured bone. Dr. Lopez 

deemed Plaintiff‟s a non-emergency and scheduled Plaintiff to see a specialist on September 25. 

 

2

In the original complaint, Plaintiff named eight individual defendants and Davita, Inc., a company contracted with 

the CDCR to provide hemodialysis treatments. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. 

Akanno, Registered Nurse Satterfield, Davita, Inc., and J. Mamuag, a hemodialysis technician.

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

Plaintiff was provided pain medication and a wheelchair. On September 25th, Plaintiff was seen 

by the specialist. Two days later, Plaintiff underwent surgery.

Plaintiff alleged that Davita employees did not monitor patients while they were 

undergoing hemodialysis treatment. Plaintiff alleged that the employees leave the room once a 

patient is connected to the hemodialysis machine. This resulted in an incident of a port coming 

loose on the inmate next to Plaintiff, spraying Plaintiff with the inmate‟s blood. 

In the December 4, 2014, order, the Court found that the complaint stated a claim under 

the Eighth Amendment against Dr. Akanno for his conduct on September 18, 2012. The 

complaint did not state any other cognizable claims. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an 

amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed against Dr. Akanno. On 

December 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint that is now before the Court.

II.

ALLEGATIONS

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he had difficulties in pursuing his 

health care appeals, which is “undermining his serious medical injuries by obstructing and 

thwarting his 2nd level of review violating his 14th Amendment Due Process rights.” (Am. 

Compl. p. 4.) Plaintiff also refers to a complaint he filed against Davita, Inc. and its employees. 

Plaintiff alleges that on August 10, 2012, he was placed in a hepatitis isolation room, “in which 

Plaintiff did not have hepatitis at all until after being exposed to another patient‟s blood and 

subjected to the filthy dirty inhumane isolation room and switch dialysis shifts and force to 

dialysis with SNY inmates who had hepatitis C.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when he 

complained, Defendant Nurse Satterfield referred to him using a racial epithet. 

Regarding Dr. Akanno, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Akanno subjected Plaintiff to imminent 

danger on August 10, 2012, “when he was subjected to Hepatitis C and infected with a life 

threaten [sic] disease which cause liver failure by RN Kelly Satterfield.” (Am. Compl. p. 7.) 

Plaintiff also asserts the vague allegation that he was “maliciously retaliated against” by 

Defendants Akanno, Satterfield, and Mamauag. Plaintiff does not allege what specific conduct 

any the defendants engaged in that was retaliatory, he simply contends that he was retaliated 

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

against for complaining about his health care. Plaintiff also re-alleges that Dr. Akanno was 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff‟s serious medical needs on September 18, 2012.

Plaintiff attaches as exhibits to his complaint copies of relevant portions of his central and 

medical files. Plaintiff does not number or otherwise categorize his exhibits. Page 54 of 

Plaintiff‟s exhibits is a copy of the Second Level Response to Plaintiff‟s inmate grievance 

regarding the dialysis incident on August 10, 2012.

3

 The response indicates that interviews 

conducted while investigating the complaint revealed that when a machine disconnects an alarm 

is activated and the machine shuts down. Very little, if any, blood escaped. Plaintiff also 

received a blood test for Hepatitis C and HIV on October 12, 2012. Plaintiff was advised that 

records revealed that he had refused his dialysis treatments at KVSP. The response also 

indicates that Plaintiff continually refused his RN evaluation. Plaintiff was advised that there 

was no indication for him to see a disease specialist, and that KVSP was following protocol 

regarding blood borne pathogen exposure. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Eighth Amendment Medical Care

In the order dismissing the original complaint, Plaintiff was advised that “[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 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006)(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (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 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 

1992).

The Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim against Dr. Akanno for deliberate 

 

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

in a 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 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

indifference on September 18, 2012. The Court found Plaintiff‟s remaining allegations regarding 

his medical care to be vague. The Court noted that Plaintiff listed several instances of

inadequate medical care. Plaintiff was advised that he must allege facts indicating that each 

individual defendant engaged in conduct that constituted deliberate indifference. Plaintiff was 

advised that he must allege facts indicating personal participation by each defendant. Plaintiff 

was specifically advised that “a person deprives another of a constitutional right where that 

person “does an affirmative act, participates in another‟s affirmative acts, of 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). The Court noted that Plaintiff 

had failed to allege specific conduct by each individual defendant that stated a claim for relief. 

The Court finds that in the first amended complaint, Plaintiff fails to correct the 

deficiencies identified on the order dismissing the original complaint. Although Plaintiff has 

alleged facts indicating that his intravenous tube was disconnected, he has not alleged any facts 

indicating that it was caused by deliberate indifference on the part of any of the defendants. A 

liberal construction of the first amended complaint, construing the facts in the light most 

favorable to Plaintiff, indicates, at most, that the technicians were negligent. 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 

105-106). 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). Further, 

Plaintiff‟s exhibits attached to his first amended complaint indicate that officials responded by 

testing Plaintiff for Hepatitis and HIV, with negative results. That Plaintiff may have a different 

opinion does not subject defendants to liability. 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). 

Plaintiff re-alleges the conduct as to Dr. Akanno on September 18, 2012. The first 

amended complaint therefore states a claim for relief against Defendant Dr. Akanno for his 

conduct on September 18, 2012. The first amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief 

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

against any other defendants for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. 

B. Retaliation

Plaintiff alleges generally that he was subjected to “retaliatory reprisals.” A plaintiff may 

state a claim for a violation of his First Amendment rights due to retaliation under section 1983. 

Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). A viable claim of retaliation in violation of 

the First Amendment consists of five elements:” “(1) an assertion that a state actor took some 

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner‟s protected conduct, and that 

such action (4) chilled the inmate‟s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did 

not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 

(9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Cartier, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. 

Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 169 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff does not specifically allege what conduct triggered the retaliatory reprisals, or 

what specific action any of the defendants engaged in that constituted reprisal. Plaintiff does 

specifically allege that he had difficulties in filing his inmate grievances and health care appeals. 

Plaintiff alleges that the Appeals Coordinator, not named as a defendant, “deliberately obstructed 

and thwarted my appeal of the second level of review on 3-10-2013.” (Am. Compl. p. 3.) 

Plaintiff does not refer to a specific inmate grievance or to any specific conduct by any of the 

named Defendants indicating that they engaged in any specific conduct that was taken in reprisal 

for filing an inmate grievance.

Further, the exhibits attached to the first amended complaint indicate that Plaintiff 

exhausted five inmate grievances regarding the conduct at issue to the final, or Director‟s Level 

Review. Plaintiff exhausted three Health Care Services Appeals: Log Nos. KVSP HC 

14045004; 12033611; 12-33568. Plaintiff exhausted two appeals regarding staff complaints. 

Log Nos. 12000756 and 12000744. The Court finds that Plaintiff‟s vague and conclusory 

allegations do not support his claim that he was retaliated against. Plaintiff‟s retaliation claim is 

unsupported by the facts alleged in the first amended complaint. This claim should therefore be 

dismissed. Because Plaintiff asserted his retaliation claim for the first time in the first amended 

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff one opportunity to file a second amended complaint that 

corrects the deficiencies identified as to Plaintiff‟s claim of retaliation.

C. Failure to Protect

Regarding Plaintiff‟s claim that Defendants failed to protect him, the Eighth Amendment 

imposes a duty on prison officials to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other inmates. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994). A prison official violates this duty when two 

requirements are met. Id. at 834. First, objectively viewed, the prison official‟s act or omission 

must cause “a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. Second, the official must be subjectively 

aware of that risk and act with “deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 834, 

839-40 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “the official must both be aware of 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and 

he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. Deliberate indifference is “something more than 

mere negligence, but “something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing 

harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Id. at 835. A prison official‟s deliberate 

indifference may be established through an “inference from circumstantial evidence” or “from 

the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Id. at 842. 

As noted above, Plaintiff‟s allegations regarding the conduct of the technicians in the 

dialysis clinic fail to state a claim for relief. Although Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating that 

his intravenous tube was disconnected, he has not alleged any facts indicating that it was caused 

by deliberate indifference on the part of any of the defendants. A liberal construction of the first 

amended complaint, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, indicates, at 

most, that the technicians were negligent. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to subject 

any of the defendants to liability for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 

Similarly, Plaintiff has failed allege any facts indicating that any of the Defendants knew of and 

disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s safety. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint states a cognizable claim against Dr. Akanno for 

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs for his conduct on September 18, 2012, in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against any 

other Defendants. Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable legal standard and the 

deficiencies in his original pleading, and despite guidance from the Court, Plaintiff‟s first 

amended complaint is largely identical to the original complaint. Based upon the allegations in 

Plaintiff‟s original and first amended complaint, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to 

allege any additional facts that would support a claim for deliberate indifference or failure to 

protect by any of the remaining defendants, and further amendment would be futile. See

Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may not deny leave 

to amend when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the deficiencies at issue, 

the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing 

the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order as to Plaintiff‟s claim of retaliation. Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding 

only against Defendant Akanno on his claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, 

Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing. The other defendants and claims will then be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will then be provided one summons and one 

USM-285 forms for completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the 

United States Marshal to initiate service of process on Defendant Akanno.

If Plaintiff elects to amend, his 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, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-679; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 

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). The mere 

possibility of misconduct is insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Further, 

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

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 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

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

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 itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

either:

a. File a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in this order as to his retaliation claim, or

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

and is willing to proceed only against Defendants Akanno for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs; and

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

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00747-LJO-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/04/16 Page 9 of 9