Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02990/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02990-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELBERT THOMAS MARTIN,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

T. FRIEDERICHS, M.D.; CORNELL

CLARK, M.D.; JOSEPH CHUDY,

M.D., Chief Medical Officer; C.

SINNACO, M.D.; Lieutenant R. A.

PEREZ; and JOHN DOE 2,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-2990 WHA (PR) 

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

This is a civil rights case filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of California. The defendants named in the original complaint were in several different places;

the Eastern District court transferred the portion of the case which was against Northern District

defendants – those named in the caption above – to this court, and other portions of the case to

other courts. The portion of the complaint relevant to the Northern District defendants will now

be reviewed to determine if it is sufficient to require a response.

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

Case 3:08-cv-02990-WHA Document 2 Filed 07/25/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The only other allegations as to Freiderichs is that he ordered an MRI and prescribed

medications, which of course could not be the basis for a medical care claim. 

2

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro

se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699

(9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.

at 1986-87. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

Plaintiff contends that he was suffering from severe back pain while confined at High

Desert State Prison. He was transferred to the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”) at

Soledad, which is in this district, where the events giving rise to his claims against Northern

District defendants occured. 

Plaintiff alleges that at CTF he wrote “numerous medical forms” but did not see a

doctor, defendant Freiderichs, until thirty-three days after his arrival at CTF.1 He does not

Case 3:08-cv-02990-WHA Document 2 Filed 07/25/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

allege when he wrote the requests to see a doctor, nor does he allege that any delay was caused

by Freiderichs, so has failed to state a claim against him. This claim will be dismissed with

leave to amend. 

Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Clark ordered another MRI about two months after

the one ordered by Freiderichs and that the results contradicted that ordered by Freiderichs. 

This is not sufficient to allege that Clark was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. 

This claim against Clark will be dismissed with leave to amend.

Plaintiff alleges only that Sinnaco requested surgery, and that defendant Chudy

approved surgery. These allegations obviously do not state a claim and will be dismissed with

leave to amend.

Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendant Perez, a correctional officer, ordered that

plaintiff be placed in a holding cell. Plaintiff says that being confined in a two-by-two foot cell

for ninety minutes caused his back pain to flare. He does not, however, allege that Perez knew

of plaintiff’s back problem nor that Perez knew of his pain in the holding cell. He thus has not

stated a claim against Perez, and this claim also must be dismissed with leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty

days from the date of this order. The amended complaint must be on this court’s form for

prisoner Section 1983 complaints. It must include the caption and civil case number used in

this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended

complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims

he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing with the clerk a separate paper headed “Notice of

Change of Address.” Papers intended to be filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk

and not to the undersigned. Petitioner also must comply with the Court's orders in a timely

Case 3:08-cv-02990-WHA Document 2 Filed 07/25/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.08\MARTIN2990.DWLTA.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-02990-WHA Document 2 Filed 07/25/08 Page 4 of 4