Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00058/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00058-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY R. DOWDY,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. RAMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00058-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND AS MOOT

(Doc. 7) 

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Danny R. Dowdy (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

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

January 14, 2008. 

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). 

Case 1:08-cv-00058-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 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

Because Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, his claim for injunctive relief is moot and this action shall 1

proceed as one for money damages only. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64

F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). 

2

“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. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 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. P. 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)).

III. Plaintiff’s Claims

The events giving rise to the claims at issue in this action allegedly occurred at California

State Prison-Corcoran, where Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time. Plaintiff alleges a violation of

the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution arising from prison officials’ failure to

provide him with proper and/or adequate medical treatment following unsuccessful shoulder

replacement surgery. Plaintiff is seeking money damages and completion of his shoulder surgery.1

 “[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, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part

test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by

demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in furthersignificant 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), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th

Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). 

Case 1:08-cv-00058-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Deliberate indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s

pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d

at 1060). Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison

physicians provide medical care.” Id. (citing McGuckin at 1060 (internal quotations omitted)).

Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to

further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404,

407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

Plaintiff names five defendants, but only describes the alleged actions of one. Plaintiff has

adequately alleged the existence of a serious medical need, and his allegations are sufficient to state

a claim for relief against Defendant Raman. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct.

2197, 2200 (2007); Alvarez v. Hill, 2008 WL 659570, No. 06-35068, *3 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2008).

However, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts linking the other four named defendants to an act or

omission which demonstrates a violation of his rights. Plaintiff will be provided with the

opportunity to cure this deficiency in an amended complaint.

IV. Motion to Amend

On January 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend to his claim for relief.

In light of this order, Plaintiff’s complaint shall be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion

is therefore moot and shall be denied on that ground. 

V. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint states a claim against Defendant Raman but fails to state any claims

against the other four defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. Plaintiff may not

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff is informed that he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

Case 1:08-cv-00058-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/25/08 Page 3 of 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

4

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in brief but specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability 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).

Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. When a named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between that defendant 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 for supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the

defendant 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). 

 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes 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 superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend, filed January 24, 2008, is DENIED as

moot;

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

Case 1:08-cv-00058-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/25/08 Page 4 of 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

5

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

amended complaint; 

5. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

complaint; and 

6. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this

action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 24, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00058-AWI-GSA Document 10 Filed 04/25/08 Page 5 of 5