Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02602/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02602-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2602 FCD GGH P

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, purports to have filed an application

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by filing this action on a form appropriate only for habeas

petitions. The court’s review of the filing, however, reveals that plaintiff has filed a civil rights

complaint, wherein he alleges inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related

to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254,

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. 

1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Challenges to the validity of

any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the

province of habeas corpus, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); requests for relief

turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 

1983 action. 

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (per curiam).

Case 2:07-cv-02602-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 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

2

The court will, therefore, construe this action as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and

will direct the Clerk of the Court to re-designate this action as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and has submitted a

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently

without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be collected

and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in

plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Case 2:07-cv-02602-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff alleges that he has not received the appropriate treatment for a liver

disorder. Complaint, p. 4. He contends that he has a life-threatening condition which could give

rise to cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer, among other conditions. Id., at 6. Although

plaintiff complains that a Dr. Akintola was hostile to his requests for a consultation or for

supplements to reduce further damage, he does not specifically identify him or name any one

individual as a defendant. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he has requested but not ever been apprised

of the results of a liver biopsy performed on him. Id., at 8. Plaintiff alleges that the medical staff

has not complied with his request for an Olson review so that he could have access to

information about his medical condition. Id., at 9. Plaintiff has included what appears to be the

signatures of seven other inmates at Mule Creek State Prison who he states generally are having

“issues pertaining [to] liver problems.” Id., at 11. Plaintiff fails to specify a defendant or to set

forth the relief he seeks.

Plaintiff’s filing is not in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Fed. R. Civ. P 8 sets

forth general rules of pleading in the federal courts. Complaints are required to set a forth (1) the

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction rests, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim

Case 2:07-cv-02602-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 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

4

showing entitlement to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief plaintiff seeks. Rule 8 requires

“sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever

v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991)). Accord Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52

F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 1995) (amended complaint with vague and scanty allegations fails to

satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8.) 

To the extent that plaintiff intends to name the State of California as a defendant,

the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought by private parties against

a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan,

440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978)( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa,

682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the instant case, the State of California has not

consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against the state are frivolous and must be

dismissed.

Further, in order to state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment

based on inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to

evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106,

97 S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). To prevail, plaintiff must show both that his medical needs were

objectively serious, and that defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson

v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2324 (1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853

(9th Cir. 1992) (on remand). The requisite state of mind for a medical claim is “deliberate

indifference.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4, 112 S. Ct. 995, 998 (1992). 

A serious medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could

result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Indications

that a prisoner has a serious need for medical treatment are the following: the existence of an

injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or

treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily

activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain. See, e.g., Wood v. Housewright, 900

Case 2:07-cv-02602-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/21/07 Page 4 of 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

5

F. 2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing cases); Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 200-01

(9th Cir. 1989). McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds, WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994) the Supreme Court

defined a very strict standard which a plaintiff must meet in order to establish “deliberate

indifference.” Of course, negligence is insufficient. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, 114 S. Ct. at 1978. 

However, even civil recklessness (failure to act in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm

which is so obvious that it should be known) is insufficient. Id. at 836-37, 114 S. Ct. at 1979. 

Neither is it sufficient that a reasonable person would have known of the risk or that a defendant

should have known of the risk. Id. at 842, 114 S. Ct. at 1981.

Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed but plaintiff will be granted leave to file an 

amended complaint within thirty days, setting forth claims that rise to the level of a constitutional

deprivation and specifically linking the claims to individually named defendants. He must also

set forth the relief he seeks.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board

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

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

Case 2:07-cv-02602-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/21/07 Page 5 of 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

6

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. The “petition” is construed as a complaint and is dismissed for the reasons

discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of

service of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that

the action be dismissed.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-designate this case as a civil rights

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

DATED: 12/21/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jime2602.bnf

Case 2:07-cv-02602-FCD-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/21/07 Page 6 of 6