Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01843/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01843-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUSTAQ ALI KAHN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRAUENHIEM, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01843 LJO DLB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Mustaq Ali Kahn (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on December 9, 2015. 

He names Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) Warden Frauenheim, PVSP Chief Medical 

Officer Dr. Bopari, PVSP Chief Executive Officer McElroy, Dr. Onyeje, Dr. Chokotas and 

Physician’s Assistant Fortune as Defendants.

A. SCREENING STANDARD

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 

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 6
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

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 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. DISCUSSION

1. Rule 8

Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations in his form complaint. While he names 

Defendants and sets forth his legal claims and requested relief, he does not provide any factual 

information. In the area of the form where a claimant is asked to set forth supporting facts, 

Plaintiff simply states, “See Attached.” ECF No. 1, at 3-4.

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 6
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 attaches numerous health care appeals to his complaint. However, the Court will 

not attempt to guess Plaintiff’s claims and supporting facts. Plaintiff must provide his own 

recitation of facts and claims in accordance with Rule 8.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to 

survive screening, 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 (quotation 

marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). As explained 

above, the sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

The Court provides the following standards for Plaintiff if he chooses to amend.

2. Eighth Amendment- Medical Care

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that 

failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a 

prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation 

and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 6
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

“Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim 

is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1977); Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-

988, overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta, 744 F.3d at 1082-83; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

“A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical 

professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 

indifference.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)), 

overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta, 744 F.3d at 1082-83; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122-23; 

(citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, Plaintiff “must show that 

the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and 

that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” 

Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3. State Law Claims

a. Jurisdictional Requirement

The “plain language” of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) “makes clear that supplemental jurisdiction 

may only be invoked when the district court has the hook of original jurisdiction on which to hang 

it.” Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Therefore, Plaintiff is notified that if he fails to allege a viable federal claim in his amended 

complaint, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim, even if 

he states a claim under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Az., Inc., 715 

F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013); Herman Family Revocable Trust, 254 F.3d at 805.

b. Medical Malpractice

“The elements of a medical malpractice claim are (1) the duty of the professional to use 

such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and 

exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent 

conduct and resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s 

negligence.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center, 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 468, n.2, 71 

Cal.Rptr.3d 707, 711 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

///

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 6
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

c. Government Code Section 845.6

Prison personnel have a statutory duty to summon medical care, and they may be held 

liable if they know or have reason to know that a prisoner is in need of immediate medical care, 

but they fail to take reasonable action to summon such care. Cal. Gov’t Code § 845.6 (West 

2011); Lucas v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996); Watson v. 

State, 21 Cal.App.4th 836, 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993); Zeilman v. County of Kern, 168 Cal.App.3d 

1174, 1185-86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). To state a claim for violation of section 845.6, the plaintiff 

“must establish three elements: (1) the public employee knew or had reason to know of the need 

(2) for immediate medical care, and (3) failed to reasonably summons such care.” Jett v. Penner, 

439 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006). “Liability . . . is limited to serious and obvious medical 

conditions requiring immediate care,” Watson, 21 Cal.App.4th at 841 (citations omitted), and the 

“section does not impose a duty to monitor the quality of care provided,” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1099 

(emphasis added).

d. Government Tort Claims Act

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to pursue tort claims under California law, the 

Government Claims Act requires exhaustion of those claims with the California Victim 

Compensation and Government Claims Board, and Plaintiff is required to specifically allege 

compliance in his complaint. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 208-09 (Cal. 

2007); State v. Superior Court of Kings Cnty. (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 (Cal. 2004); Mabe 

v. San Bernardino Cnty. Dep’t of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2001); Mangold 

v. California Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995); Karim-Panahi v. Los 

Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988).

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state any cognizable claims for relief.

Plaintiff has not previously been provided with notice of the deficiencies in his claims and 

the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes, 

in good faith, he can cure the identified deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 

(9th Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 6
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

1987). If Plaintiff amends, he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607.

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under 

section 1983, it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of 

respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. 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 supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

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

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

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order, or

file a notice of voluntary dismissal; and 

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01843-LJO-DLB Document 8 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 6