Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00231/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00231-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ALLEN GUNNARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORIZON, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00231 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Mark Allen Gunnarson (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the Fresno County Jail 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed this action on February 11, 2015. He names Fresno County Sheriff Margaret 

Mimms, Corizon Medical, the Fresno Jail Staff, Head of Medical Staff Dr. Thomas and Deputy 

Sheriff Long as Defendants.1

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 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 23, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00231-DLB Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 7
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 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. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. 

Plaintiff alleges that on October 28, 2014, he was taken to have his blood drawn. An LVN 

tried and missed his vein. The LVN then let three other nurses try, and when Plaintiff asked them 

to stop, they refused until they had tried five times. A lab tech then came in and was able to draw 

the blood with one try. Plaintiff asked the lab tech if it was hard to draw his blood, and she said

“no.” ECF No. 1, at 4. Plaintiff has had his blood drawn numerous times since then and has never 

had a problem. After the incident, Plaintiff’s hands were swollen and his arms were numb for 

three days. He also suffered bruising.

On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff went to have his blood pressure test. He was told that it was 

high in both arms. Plaintiff has a history of high blood pressure and a heart condition, and the 

Case 1:15-cv-00231-DLB Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 7
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

nurse told him that she would notify the lead care nurse. Plaintiff returned to his housing unit and 

waited, ultimately falling asleep without medications. 

When he awoke on January 9, 2014, his chest hurt and his blood pressure was still high. 

Plaintiff went to medical and was given aspirin. His blood pressure was checked again, but it was 

still high. Plaintiff contends that this was not proper care, and he believes that he should have 

been housed in medical so that he could be monitored. 

On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff advised jail staff that his nitro stat was broken during a 

search. Jail staff called medical, who told them for six days that they would bring Plaintiff the 

bottle. This never occurred, however. When Plaintiff asked medical staff, they denied ever being 

told about the incident. 

Plaintiff believes that his well-being is not Corizon Medical’s first concern, as it took them 

seven days to replace his nitro stat. 

C. DISCUSSION

1. Linkage

Plaintiff names numerous individual Defendants, but he does not link any Defendant to 

any alleged violation. It is not sufficient to allege that “jail staff,” “medical staff,” or an LVN took 

actions that allegedly violated his rights. 

As explained above, 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 also names Fresno County Sheriff Mimms. He is advised that supervisory 

personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of subordinate employees 

based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th 

Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th 

Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “A 

supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional 

Case 1:15-cv-00231-DLB Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 7
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

deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful 

conduct and the constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Snow, 681 F.3d at 

989) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 

915-16. “Under the latter theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt personal 

participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the 

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional 

violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Therefore, although Plaintiff names Defendants Mimms, Thomas and Long, he does not 

specifically link them to any alleged violation. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against any 

Defendant.

2. Corizon Health

There is no vicarious liability under section 1983, including a section 1983 action against a 

private entity acting under color of state law. To state a claim under section 1983 against a private 

entity performing a traditional public function, such as providing medical care to prisoners, a 

plaintiff must allege facts to support that his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a 

policy, decision, or custom promulgated or endorsed by the private entity. See Tsao v. Desert 

Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138–39 (9th Cir.2012); Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450, 452 (11th 

Cir.1997).

Here, Plaintiff makes no claims that Corizon Health acted pursuant to any policy or 

decision. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Corizon Health.

3. Denial of 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.2 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. 

 

2

Plaintiff states that he will be incarcerated at the Fresno County Jail until his release in December 2015. This 

suggests that he is a convicted inmate, rather than a pretrial detainee.

Case 1:15-cv-00231-DLB Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 7
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

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.

Plaintiff lists three incidents of medical care during which he believes his rights were 

violated. However, he fails to allege that any individual acted with deliberate indifference. For 

example, he states that he asked an LVN to stop his blood draw, but he continued to attempt to 

draw blood and/or allow others to do so. He does not provide facts to show that any Defendant 

“[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. 

at 837. Rather, they were attempting to perform a blood draw, and while Plaintiff may have been 

unhappy with their attempts, there is no evidence to show that anyone acted with deliberate 

indifference. In fact, Plaintiff himself characterizes their attempts as “malpractice/negligence.” 

However, an Eighth Amendment claim may not be premised on even gross negligence by a 

physician. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that he was not given medication after a high blood pressure 

reading, and that it took days to get a replacement for medication. He fails to provide sufficient 

facts surrounding the denials, and he therefore fails to allege that they were due to any 

Defendants’ deliberate indifference. Plaintiff also alleges that he did not receive proper care, and 

he believes that he should have been housed in medical. However, “[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 v. McDaniel, 681 

F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)), 

Case 1:15-cv-00231-DLB Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 7
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

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, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 

330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment.

4. Negligence

To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to state a medical negligence claim, he is advised that 

the Court will only exercise jurisdiction over a state law claim where a cognizable federal claim 

exists. 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 v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2001). 

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims for which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend, but he should only do so if he can 

amend in good faith.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 

2101 (2012). 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. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

amended complaint; and

Case 1:15-cv-00231-DLB Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 6 of 7
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

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00231-DLB Document 6 Filed 07/17/15 Page 7 of 7