Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00871/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00871-0/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT LARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES MCDONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00871-EMC 

ORDER REQUIRING COMPLAINT

Docket No. 1

This action was opened when Scott Larson filed a “motion for enforcement of courtordered medical care.” Docket No. 1. He seeks an order to show cause why the California 

Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) is not providing hernia repair surgery. He 

alleges that the failure to provide the surgery violates the mandates of Plata v. Brown, N. D. Cal. 

Case No. 01-1351 EMC. Docket No. 1 at 1-2.

Mr. Larson alleges that he developed a hernia in April 2015 while he was housed at the 

LaPalma Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona (where he apparently was housed as an out-of-state 

California prisoner). He sought medical care while at the LaPalma Correctional Center and 

allegedly was informed by a doctor at that facility that he needed surgery but “the surgery will not 

be performed until CDCR approves payment.” Id. at 3.1 Mr. Larson later was transferred back to 

 

1

Exhibits submitted by Mr. Larson show that he filed an inmate appeal which was denied at the 

second level on the ground that there was “no medical necessity for surgical repair at this time.” 

Docket No. 1 at 20. Other exhibits show that Mr. Larson also contacted the Prison Law Office 

several times for help with his request for hernia surgery, and the Prison Law Office made several 

inquiries to CDCR officials about his condition. Id. at 24-30. The most recent response from the

Prison Law Office was an October 5, 2015 letter explaining to Mr. Larson that he was mistaken in 

his belief that his hernia “is incarcerated and strangulated according to the medical records.” Id. at 

30. The actual diagnosis was not of a strangulated hernia. Id. “The provider determined that your 

condition was stable and surgery was not recommended, which is a good thing because it means 

your hernia was not immediately life-threatening.” Id.

Case 3:16-cv-00871-EMC Document 13 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

California, and recently informed the Court that he is now temporarily housed at the California 

Institute for Men in Chino, will be transferred to a new prison, and will notify the Court of that 

address when he is transferred. Docket No. 11. 

Mr. Larson’s motion to enforce an order in Plata must be denied. Judge Henderson has 

determined that individual inmates may not file pro se motions in the Plata case: “As members of 

the Plaintiff class, [individual] inmates are represented parties and may file motions only through

their counsel of record. Accordingly, . . . the Clerk shall not file in this action any further 

documents submitted by pro se inmates.” Plata v. Brown, No. 01-1351, Order filed February 7, 

2011 (Docket No. 2348). Due to the disallowance of pro se motions in Plata, Mr. Larson’s 

motion for enforcement of court-ordered medical care is DISMISSED. (Docket No. 1.) 

A motion is not a proper pleading to commence a civil action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A 

civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”) If Mr. Larson wants to pursue a 

claim that prison officials have not provided the medical care to which he is constitutionally 

entitled, he must file a civil rights complaint because without such a pleading, the federal court 

does not have jurisdiction over the action. The Clerk will mail to Mr. Larson a copy of this 

Court’s civil rights complaint form for his convenience. In filling out the complaint, Mr. Larson 

must be certain to name defendants and to link each of those defendants to his claim by alleging 

what each such defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. A 

medical care claim arises under the Eighth Amendment, because deliberate indifference to a 

prisoner’s serious medical needs amounts to the cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the 

Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 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. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). For the objective 

prong of the deliberate indifference test in a medical care claim, the plaintiff “must show 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.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For the subjective, or

Case 3:16-cv-00871-EMC Document 13 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

“deliberate indifference” prong, the plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 

to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Larson also should be certain to fill in the 

portion of the form complaint that asks him to list the relief he requests. 

Mr. Larson must file his complaint no later than May 27, 2016. Failure to file the 

complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Finally, it is quite likely that this action will be transferred to another district, but the 

Court needs to see the complaint before making such a determination. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00871-EMC Document 13 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 3