Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02672/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02672-2/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

1

 Nowhere is this term explained.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSIE WATSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2672 MCE EFB P

vs.

MARTIN VEAL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel prosecuting this civil rights action in forma

pauperis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This proceeding was referred to this court

by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On January 3, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. On

March 13, 2007, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, for the

following reasons, finds that it, too, fails to state a claim for relief.

Plaintiff alleges that Nurses Boncarros and Awa each recommended that plaintiff’s “dry

weight”1

 be increased from 72 kg to 75 kg, and that Dr. Al-Bander ordered this increase without

personally examining plaintiff. Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to discern. He alleges that

Case 2:06-cv-02672-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 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

2

 Plaintiff does not explain the implications.

3

 Again, plaintiff does not explain the significance of his allegations. It is possible that a

strong heart is necessary to withstand anesthesia, but in the absence of an allegation to this

effect, the court (and defendants) are left to speculate about what plaintiff’s claim is.

2

defendant Martin Veal, as a supervisor, should have understood the implications2 of this decision

and intervened on plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff alleges that he developed a build-up of fluid that

caused him to cough hard enough to fracture a rib and that he suffered heart damage such that he

is not a good candidate for a kidney transplant.3 At most, plaintiff alleges a tort claim of

malpractice but not a section 1983 claim for deprivation of his rights under the Eighth

Amendment due to cruel and unusual punishment.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant

deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim

defendants provided constitutionally inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege acts or

omissions evidencing identified defendants knew of and disregarded plaintiff’s serious medical

needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994). The “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level on the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in

fact).” Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007)

(citations omitted). Neither negligence on the part of defendants nor plaintiff’s general

disagreement with the treatment he received suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106;

Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d

330, 331 (9th Cir. 1996). 

A supervisor is liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if he 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), or if he implemented a policy so deficient that the

Case 2:06-cv-02672-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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). 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy these standards.

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1128

(9th Cir. 2000) (indigent prisoner proceeding without counsel must be given leave to file

amended complaint unless the court can rule out any possibility that the plaintiff could state a

claim).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 2, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02672-MCE -EFB Document 11 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 3