Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00913/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00913-1/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

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

DAVID RAY MILLS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

M. BOWDEN, et al,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00913-EPG-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff David Ray Mills (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on June 17, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) In Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he 

did not receive prompt medical attention for his in-grown toenail, and generally that the prison 

is in need of better medical protocols.

On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.) 

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

This Court has screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim as to 

any defendant. This order provides an explanation of the relevant law to inform the Plaintiff 

Case 1:15-cv-00913-EPG Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 7
2

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

should he desire to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint 

attempting to state a claim within thirty days, if he so chooses. If Plaintiff chooses not to file 

an amended complaint, this Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a cognizable 

claim.

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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).

A complaint is required to 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are 

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that 

is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Id. 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. Id. 

\\\

Case 1:15-cv-00913-EPG Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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

II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that on January 3-7, 2014, he requested medical 

attention due to an injury on January 1, 2014. Plaintiff was not seen until January 7, 2014 

despite being promised many times by Defendant Bowden that he would be seen earlier. 

Plaintiff hurt his right foot on a job assignment in the kitchen. His left foot had an ingrown toe nail. On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff went to Defendant Dr. Le Young. However, 

Plaintiff was disappointed due to his neglect. Plaintiff alleges that “Central Valley Medical is 

run very poorly. Protocol is out the window . . . .” The inmate population is more than 700 

inmates, which is more than the medical staff can handle. Furthermore, Dr. Le Young 

neglected his duties as a physician by failing to do his job as doctor of the facility. 

Plaintiff attaches his 602 grievance responses regarding this issue. Those records 

provide a history of medical appointments in the month of January and February 2014. They 

also indicate that Plaintiff had his toe nail removed on January 29, 2014.

Plaintiff names as defendants: Warden M. Bowden, Dr. Le Young, CDCR Secretary 

Jeffrey Beard.

III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

A. Legal Standards

Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, under color of state 

law, “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “A 

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to 

perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint 

is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). “In a § 1983 action, the 

plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was the actionable cause of the 

claimed injury. To meet this causation requirement, the plaintiff must establish both causationin-fact and proximate causation.” Harper v. City of L.A., 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008)

(internal citations omitted). Proximate cause requires “‘some direct relation between the injury 

Case 1:15-cv-00913-EPG Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

asserted and the injurious conduct alleged.”’ Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 

1, 130 (2010) (quoting Holmes v. Secs. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992)).

“[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, 104 (1976)). This 

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.” 

Id. (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal 

quotations marks omitted), overruled on other grounds WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 

1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)).

Deliberate indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of 

and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 

1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Deliberate indifference can be established “by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to 

respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citation omitted). Civil recklessness (failure “to act in the face of an 

unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known”) is 

insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

836-37 & n.5 (1994) (citations omitted).

A difference of opinion between an inmate and prison medical personnel—or between 

medical professionals—regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment is not enough to 

establish a deliberate indifference claim. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); 

Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058. Additionally, “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in 

diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment 

under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation 

merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.

\\\

Case 1:15-cv-00913-EPG Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 7
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

A. Application to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff’s allegations that he did not receive prompt treatment for his ingrown toe and 

that his doctor was negligent do not state a constitutional claim under these standards. Plaintiff 

has not alleged that the delay itself resulted in a serious medical injury. Moreover, Plaintiff 

does not allege that the Dr. Le Young or any other defendant was aware of his serious medical

condition and intentionally ignored the risk to his health. At most, Plaintiff states a claim for 

medical malpractice, which is not a constitutional claim subject to this Court’s jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s allegations about the facility generally do not state a constitutional claim. In 

order to state a constitutional claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must allege that how an 

individual or individuals harmed him personally. It is not a mechanism to complain about the 

lack of proper protocols more generally.

Finally, Plaintiff’s allegations against the warden, Defendant M. Bowden, and secretary 

of the CDCR, Jeffrey Beard, fail to state a claim because section 1983 generally does not 

provide a cause of action against supervisors. In order to hold someone liable as a supervisor, 

Plaintiff must allege facts as to each Defendant indicating that they knew of and disregarded an 

objectively serious risk to Plaintiff's health, resulting in injury to Plaintiff. Supervisors may be 

held liable only if they “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and 

failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr 

v. Baca, 625 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th 

Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th 

Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff=s Complaint fails to state any cognizable claim upon 

which relief may be granted under ' 1983. The Court will dismiss this complaint and give 

Plaintiff leave to amend to file an amended complaint addressing the issues described above. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “leave to amend shall be 

freely given when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with time 

to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

Case 1:15-cv-00913-EPG Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 5 of 7
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

F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint 

within thirty days if he chooses to do so.

The amended complaint must allege constitutional violations under the law as discussed 

above. Specifically, Plaintiff must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat 

superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676. Plaintiff must also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health or safety, 

which is sufficiently serious. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 

for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 

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

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes 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 superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified 

by the Court in this order if he believes additional true factual allegations would 

state a claim, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order;

3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the case number 

1:15-cv-00913-EPG; and

Case 1:15-cv-00913-EPG Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 6 of 7
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. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Court will 

dismiss Plaintiff’s case for failure to state a claim and failure to comply with a 

Court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00913-EPG Document 10 Filed 09/28/16 Page 7 of 7