Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06977/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06977-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06977-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND; DENYING MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison–Sacramento, proceeding pro se, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials and staff at Salinas Valley State 

Prison (“SVSP”), where he was previously incarcerated. He has been granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis in a separate order. Based upon a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A, it is dismissed with leave to amend.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an 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 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. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 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).

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

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

B. Legal Claims

According to the complaint, plaintiff is an insulin-dependent diabetic with attendant 

complications, including high blood pressure, peripheral neuropathy, and episodic hypoglycemia 

(low blood sugar). Plaintiff alleges that it is the policy of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to give all insulin-dependent diabetic inmates a snack 

consisting of two packs of crackers and one fresh fruit, in addition to the daily standard meals. 

This “diabetic snack”—as plaintiff refers to it—is meant to safeguard against a hypoglycemic 

episode when an inmate is confined to a cell overnight. Plaintiff alleges that from May 27, 2016 

to January 12, 2017, while incarcerated at SVSP, defendants failed to provide plaintiff with his 

diabetic snack, causing him to suffer several hypoglycemic episodes. 

Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs. He names the following individuals as defendants: CDCR deputy director J. Lewis, SVSP 

warden W.L. Muniz, SVSP medical doctor K. Kumar, SVSP medical doctor B. Marshall, SVSP 

medical doctor L. Gamboa, SVSP nurse Rodriqez, and SVSP dietician C. Watson. 

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth 

Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 

1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when 

two requirements are met: (1) the deprivation alleged is, objectively, sufficiently serious, and 

(2) the official is, subjectively, deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 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.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if she or he knows that a prisoner faces a 

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate 

it. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but he or she “must also 

draw the inference.” Id. “Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious 

medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment. . . . Mere 

negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a 

prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citation omitted); see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-36 & n.4 (recognizing that neither negligence nor 

gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference). 

Plaintiff’s allegations that he suffers from diabetes establish that he has a serious medical 

need. The complaint, however, fails to satisfy the subjective prong of an Eighth Amendment 

claim in that it does not allege facts suggestive of deliberate indifference by prison officials or 

staff to a known risk to plaintiff’s health or safety. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the failure to 

provide a snack amount, at most, to negligence, which is insufficient to state an Eighth 

Amendment claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (negligence in treating medical condition does not 

state valid Eighth Amendment claim). Further, with the exception of defendants Rodriqez and 

Watson, plaintiff does not provide facts linking the named defendants to his claim. Plaintiff 

attaches to the complaint various exhibits, including California Correctional Health Care Services 

appeals forms and health care records, apparently as a way to explain his problem. The Court will 

not read through exhibits to piece together a claim for a plaintiff who has not pled one.

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Therefore, the Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed. Dismissal is with leave to amend 

for plaintiff to add allegations that show defendants knew about plaintiff’s serious medical need 

and deliberately prevented plaintiff from receiving medical care or failed to treat his serious 

medical need. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must link one or more defendants to this claim 

by stating what each proposed defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his 

constitutional rights. 

With respect to named defendants Lewis and Muniz, plaintiff has indicated that he named 

these individuals as defendants because they were responsible for the overall operation of the 

prison. With respect to named defendants Kumar, Marshall, and Gamboa, plaintiff has indicated 

that he named these individuals as defendants because they were responsible for the 

implementation of medical policies. Plaintiff is advised that supervisory personnel are generally 

not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor 

may be liable only on a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or 

(2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 

constitutional violation. Henry A. v. Willden, 678 F.3d 991, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff is 

given leave to amend to add such allegations, if he truthfully can do so.

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED for want of exceptional 

circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lassiter v. 

Dep’t of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981) (there is no constitutional right to counsel in a 

civil case). This denial is without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a 

future date should the circumstances of this case warrant such appointment.

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

2. If plaintiff believes he can state a cognizable claim for relief, he shall file an 

AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed. The amended 

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 17-6977 HSG 

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. If plaintiff files an amended 

complaint, he must allege, in good faith, facts—not merely conclusions of law—that demonstrate 

that he is entitled to relief under the applicable federal laws. Failure to file a proper amended 

complaint in the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without further 

notice to plaintiff. 

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in 

the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

4. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court 

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

Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely 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).

5. The Clerk shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of this 

order.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/3/2018

Case 4:17-cv-06977-HSG Document 15 Filed 04/03/18 Page 5 of 5