Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00059/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

l3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

" ~ 

H;::-:;; :.L. 

q '( ~---.------~'--

~~~_, f,lfPUT" 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TORRY BUCHANAN, 

CDCR #G-56171, 

vs. 

Plaintiff, 

Dr. A. GARlKAPARTHI, Primary Care 

Physician; Dr. S. ROBERTS, Chief 

Medical Executive; J. CLARK KELSO, 

Receiver; DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15cv0059 BEN (MDD) 

ORDER: 

(1) SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 

. DEFENDANTS KELSO AND 

PARAMO 

AND 

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFECT SERVICE OF AMENDED 

COMPLAINT UPON REMAINING 

DEFENDANTS 

21 Plaintiff Torry Buchanan, currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

22 Correctional Facility ("RJD") in San Diego, California, is proceeding pro se in this civil 

23 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No.1.) Plaintiff did not prepay 

24 the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed 

25 In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Docket No.2.) 

26 On May 14,2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed IFP, but 

27 dismissed his Complaint sua sponte for failing to state a claim upon which section 1983 

28 relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). (See 

15cv0059 BEN (MDD) 

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
1 Docket No.3, May 14,2015 Order at 9.) Plaintiffs Complaint alleged all Defendants 

2 violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care; however the Court found 

3 Plaintiff failed to include any factual allegations to explain how Defendants Roberts, 

4 Kelso, and Paramo were individually liable (id. at 5-6), and failed to further allege any 

5 facts sufficient to show that Defendant Garikaparthi acted with "deliberate indifference" 

6 to a serious risk to his health or safety. (Id. at 6-8.) Plaintiff was provided an explanation 

7 of the deficiencies in his pleading, granted leave to amend, and cautioned that any claims 

8 not included in his First Amended Complaint ("F AC") would be considered waived. (Id. 

9 at 9 (citing Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012»). Plaintiff has 

10 since filed a FAC. (Docket No.4.) 

11 II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 

12 A. Standard of Review 

13 As Plaintiff knows, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to review 

14 complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are 

15 "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 

16 delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, 

17 pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as practicable after docketing." 28 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte 

19 dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 

20 claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

21 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,1126-27 (9th Cir. 

22 2000) (en banc) (discussing section 1915(e)(2»; Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 

23 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing section 1915A(b». 

24 All complaints must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

25 pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

26 required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 

27 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

28 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007». "Determining whether a 

2 

15cv0059 BEN (MDD) 

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
1 complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that requires 

2 the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. The 

3 "mere possibility of misconduct" falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see 

4 also Moss v. u.s. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962,969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

5 "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

6 veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." 

7 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) ("[W]hen 

8 determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations 

9 of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

10 plaintiff."); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)(noting that 

11 section 1915(e)(2) "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). 

12 In addition, the court "ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, 

13 particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the 

14 petitioner the benefit of any doubt." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 

15 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.l (9th Cir. 1985)). However, it 

16 may not "supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled." Ivey v. Bd. of 

17 Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

18 B. Defendants Kelso and Paramo 

19 First, the Court finds sua sponte dismissal of Defendants Kelso and Paramo is 

20 required because, while they were included as parties in Plaintiffs Complaint, the F AC 

21 omits all reference to them and alleges no causes of action against either of them. 

22 "[T]he general rule is that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint 

23 and renders it without legal effect." Lacey, 693 F.3d at 927; see also Hal Roach Studios 

24 v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990) ("The fact that a party was 

25 named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the 

26 original."); Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55,57 (9th Cir. 1967) (after amendment the original 

27 pleading no longer performs any function and is "treated thereafter as non-existent"). 

28 Therefore, all claims not re-alleged as to these parties in Plaintiffs FAC are hereby 

3 

15cv0059 BEN (MDD) 

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
1 considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on 

2 other grounds by Lacey, 693 F.3d 896; Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 

3 1992). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Defendants Kelso and Paramo from this matter 

4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). 

5 C. Defendants Garikaparthi and Roberts 

6 In the F AC, Plaintiff claims that he suffered from a "severe and painful infection in 

7 [his] big toe" from October 2012 through May 2015, and that he "repeatedly complained" 

8 to Dr. Garikaparthi, his primary care physician at RJD, that the bandages and foot cream 

9 he had prescribed were "superficial" and "did not [e ]ffectively address the underlying 

10 problem of [his] infection." (FAC at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Garikaparthi's 

11 "fail[ ure] to take [his] condition seriously," the infection spread and ultimately resulted in 

12 the amputation of three toes. (Id.) 

13 Plaintiff further contends that he informed Dr. Roberts, RJD's Chief Medical 

14 Officer, via "numerous letters" that he "was not receiving proper medical [treatment]," 

15 and that he "feared that [he] might lose [his] foot." (Id.) Plaintiff claims he "explained to 

16 Dr. Roberts that [his] big toe was infected," and that he was "in extreme pain," but "only 

17 being given bandages and foot cream." (Id.) Plaintiff contends Roberts "was aware of 

18 [his] condition," but acted with "deliberate indifference" to his medical needs by failing 

19 to "fulfill his obligation" to supervise Dr. Garikaparthi, which resulted in amputation. 

20 (Id.) 

21 Based on these allegations, the Court now finds Plaintiffs FAC sufficient to survive 

22 the "low threshold" for proceeding past the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. 

23 §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).1 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); 

24 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (prison officials may be held liable under the 

25 

26 

I Plaintiff is cautioned that "the sua sponte screenin~ and dismissal procedure is 

27 cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequenCRule 12(b)(6) motion that ra 

defendant] may choose to bring." Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp.ld 1115, 1119 (S.D. 

Cal. 2007). 28 

4 

15cv0059 BEN (MDD) 

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
1 Eighth Amendment if they act with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs); id. 

2 at 104-05 (deliberate indifference may be shown if prison officials "intentionally deny[] 

3 or delay[] access to medical care or intentionally interfer[ e] with the treatment once 

4 prescribed. "). 

5 Accordingly, the Court directs the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants Garikaparthi 

6 and Roberts on Plaintiffs behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ("The officers of the court 

7 shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8 4( c )(3) ("[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or 

9 deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 

10 U.S.C. § 1915."). 

11 III. Conclusion and Order 

12 Good cause appearing, the Court: 

13 1. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to dismiss Defendants KELSO and PARAMO 

14 as parties to this action. 

15 2. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to issue a summons as to Plaintiffs FAC 

16 upon Defendants GARlKAP ARTHI and ROBERTS and forward it to Plaintiff along with 

17 a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each ofthese Defendants. In addition, the Court 

18 DIRECTS the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Court's May 14, 

19 2015 Order Granting Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, a certified copy of his 

20 F AC, and the summons so that he may serve Defendants GARIKAP ARTHI and 

21 ROBERTS. Once he receives this "IFP Package," the Court ORDERS Plaintiffto 

22 complete the USM Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return 

23 them to the U.S. Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter 

24 accompanying his IFP package. 

25 3. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal, upon receipt of Plaintiffs completed USM 

26 Form 285s, to timely serve a copy of Plaintiffs FAC and summons upon each Defendant 

27 as directed by Plaintiff. All costs ofthat service will be advanced by the United States. 

28 III 

5 

15cv0059 BEN (MDD) 

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
.. I \ I 

1 4. ORDERS Defendants, once they have been served, to reply to Plaintiffs 

2 FAC within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil 

3 Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may occasionally be 

4 permitted to "waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any 

5 jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983," once the Court has 

6 conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), 

7 and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone 

8 that Plaintiff has a "reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits," the defendant is 

9 required to respond). 

10 5. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

11 serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants' 

12 counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 

13 Court's consideration. Plaintiff must include with every original document he seeks to file 

14 with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct 

15 copy of that document has been served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the 

16 date ofthat service. 

17 Any document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the 

18 Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants may be 

19 disregarded. 

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

21 

22 DATED: Novembe~:l--;""2(n5 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Judge 

6 

15cv0059 BEN (MDD) 

Case 3:15-cv-00059-BEN-MDD Document 5 Filed 11/12/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6