Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00183/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00183-0/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

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

MICHAEL A. CRAIG SR.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

RN FARIA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG-PC

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 

SECTION 1983, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(ECF No. 1.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL

I. BACKGROUND

Michael A. Craig Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner 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 January 14, 2015. (Doc. 1.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff 

generally alleges that he was required to see a certain registered nurse even though he had 

previously filed a complaint against that nurse. He also generally alleges that he was denied 

due process and other rights.

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a cause of action. The facts are vague and difficult 

to understand. Plaintiff has not described what each defendant did or failed to do and how it 

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 8
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

caused him harm. Thus, the Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court 

has attempted to set out in this order a description of what is required to plead the various legal 

theories Plaintiff discusses in his Complaint so he can determine if there are facts supporting 

those claims that justify an amended complaint.

II. 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 Afrivolous 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). ANotwithstanding 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). 

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLANT

Plaintiff’s Complaint lists in its caption six purported defendants: RN-Faria, T. 

Ordonez, M. Carrarquillo, D. Hermasillo, RN Martinez, and Medical Department. (ECF No. 1, 

p. 1.) However, in answer to the part of the form asking Plaintiff to name Defendants, he does 

not list anyone by name, but includes a description of the Facility F. Clinic Nurse (RN) at 

Corcoran State Prison.

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he received inadequate medical care. He states 

that he has a conflict of interest with RN-Faria as he previously submitted a 602 grievance 

against that nurse. It appears the prison requires him to see RN-Faria in order to obtain 

additional medical assistance. It also appears that RN-Faria refused Plaintiff’s request to see a 

doctor. He suffers from a medical issue regarding the calf area of both legs and says it is an 

ongoing problem. Plaintiff also says he contracted Valley Fever in 2011 and was diagnosed in 

2012. However, RN Faria stated that “You don’t have the disease any longer.” (ECF No. 1, p. 

6:25.) Plaintiff also states that his back problem was ignored.

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 8
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

In addition to these factual allegations, Plaintiff states a number of legal claims. He 

claims he was deprived of Due Process of the law. He claims that prison officials were 

deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs. He claims that his access to the courts was 

impeded. He also claims that his First Amendment rights were violated. He cites many legal 

cases that cover many types of constitutional claims.

IV. EVALUATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

A. Section 1983

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the 

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any 

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction 

thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party 

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper 

proceeding for redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. ASection 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal 

Constitution and laws.@ Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(internal quotations omitted). ATo the extent that the violation of a state law amounts to the 

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal 

Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.@ Id. 

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted 

under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the 

Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 

2006). AA 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). AThe 

requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal 

participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which

the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional 

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 8
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

injury.@ Id. at 743-44.

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide sufficient facts to state a claim under section 

1983. He does not explain whom he is naming as defendants, exactly what each defendant did 

or failed to do, or how he was injured. Although he claims that he did not want to see RN-Faria 

due to a 602 violation, he does not state that RN-Faria deliberately ignored a medical issue or 

failed to provide medical assistance, or that Plaintiff was injured as a result. He does not 

provide any facts regarding the other defendants listed in the caption. Merely saying that the 

prison has a requirement to see a certain nurse despite having asserted a grievance against that

nurse does not state a constitutional violation.

A complaint is required to contain Aa 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 A[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 Aare 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 Asufficient 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. The mere possibility of misconduct falls 

short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 

962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should attempt to set forth facts 

instead of legal conclusions. He should name specific defendants and describe what they did or 

failed to do. If possible, he should include specific information such as what was said or done 

and when. In particular, he should describe what each person did or failed to do that hurt 

Plaintiff. For example as to Nurse Faria, he should describe what medical assistance he 

believed was needed, what Nurse Faria did or said when he requested assistance, any evidence 

that Nurse Faria deliberately ignored a medical condition rather than disagreed with Plaintiff 

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 4 of 8
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

about a diagnosis, and any injury Plaintiff suffered because he failed to receive the treatment he 

required. 

To assist Plaintiff in determining if he has a claim, and aid him if he chooses to file an 

amended complaint, the Court will review some of the law regarding the types of claims 

Plaintiff mentions in his amended complaint.

B. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

A[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)). The two-part 

test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) A>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) Athe defendant=s response to 

the need was deliberately indifferent.@ Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 

F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 

104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate 

indifference is shown by Aa purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner=s pain or possible 

medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.@ Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). 

Deliberate indifference may be manifested Awhen prison officials deny, delay or intentionally 

interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians 

provide medical care.@ Id. Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, 

the delay must have led to further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of 

State Prison Comm=rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 

1060 (9th Cir. 2004). AA showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to 

establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.@ Id. A[E]ven gross 

negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.@ Id. (citing Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 5 of 8
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

AA difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities 

regarding treatment does not give rise to a ' 1983 claim.@ Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 

1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, plaintiff Amust show that the course 

of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . 

that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff=s health.@ 

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted).

C. Due Process

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of liberty without due 

process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to state a cause of 

action for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of 

a liberty interest for which the protection is sought. Liberty interests may arise from the Due 

Process Clause itself or from state law. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983). The 

Due Process Clause itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in avoiding Amore 

adverse conditions of confinement.@ Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). With 

respect to liberty interests arising from state law, the existence of a liberty interest created by 

prison regulations is determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Sandin v. 

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-84 (1995). Liberty interests created by prison regulations are 

limited to freedom from restraint which Aimposes atypical and significant hardship on the 

inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.@ Id. at 484. 

D. Denial of Access to Courts

Prisoners have a right under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to litigate claims 

challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement without direct interference 

from prison officials. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824–25. However, the right of 

access is merely the right to bring to Court a grievance the inmate wishes to present, and is 

limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 

354. To claim a violation of this right, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered an actual 

injury as a result of the alleged interference. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 6 of 8
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

(2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. In other words, he must be able to show that the deprivation 

has directly impacted the relevant litigation in a manner adverse to him. Id. at 348 (defining 

“actual injury” as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as 

the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.”). While Plaintiff has a 

constitutional right to access the courts, the interferences complained of by Plaintiff must have 

caused him to sustain an actual injury. Id. at 351; Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 

2010); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). 

V. CONCLUSION

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

which relief may be granted under ' 1983. 

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

freely given when justice so requires.” Given that Plaintiff has largely failed to provide 

sufficient detail about his claims including what each defendant did or failed to do and how, if 

at all, Plaintiff was injured as a result, the Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above if he is able. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

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

within thirty days.

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). 

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 7 of 8
8

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

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes 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 superceded 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. Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on January 14, 2015, is DISMISSED for failure to state 

a claim under § 1983, with leave to amend;

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

3. 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;

4. 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-00183-DAD-EPG-PC; 

5. If Plaintiff chooses not to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal within thirty days; and

6. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00183-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/11/16 Page 8 of 8