Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00567/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00567-2/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

Plaintiff Steve Mattson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 19, 2013. 

He names the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Kern Valley State 

Prison (“KVSP”) Warden M. Biter, KVSP Chief Medical Officer S. Lopez and Dr. Dileo as 

Defendants.

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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. 

STEVE MATTSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv0567 AWI DLB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 12 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 6
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

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding 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). 

A complaint must contain “a 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 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state 

a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or omissions 

of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under 

section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 

(9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 

934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility 

of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 

at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that for years, he had an established debilitating back injury for which he 

received treatment while housed at Corcoran State Prison. However, when he was transferred to 

KVSP, Defendant Dileo deliberately interfered with the treatment prescribed by his former primary 

care physician. Since the interference, Plaintiff’s mobility has suffered and he is unable to walk 

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 12 Filed 06/26/13 Page 2 of 6
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

without a walker or wheelchair. Plaintiff is in great pain when he performs daily tasks such as 

showering and going to programs and services.

 Plaintiff further alleges that despite objective medical evidence of injury (an x-ray), 

Defendants Lopez and Dileo refuse to allow an MRI and an appointment with an orthopedic specialist. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dileo told him at medical interviews that, “This is a disciplinary 

prison, we don’t give out certain medications at this disciplinary prison.” Compl. 4. 

On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Biter and Lopez have an 

informal/formal program at KVSP which denies pain management except in extraordinary 

circumstances.

Plaintiff also alleges, on information and belief, that Defendants Lopez and Biter have 

instructed Defendant Dileo to only prescribe psychotropic medications in lieu of pain medications. 

Plaintiff contends that this is done without informed consent, and without knowledge of side effects.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants are aware of his disability and his ADA status has been 

approved. However, he alleges that they are deliberately indifferent to treating his incurable medical 

condition. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Defendant CDCR

The Eleventh Amendment erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought against the 

state. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). While “[t]he Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against a state official for prospective 

relief,” Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1065-66, suits against the state or its agencies are barred absolutely, 

regardless of the form of relief sought, e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 

89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900 (1984); Buckwalter v. Nevada Bd. of Medical Examiners, 678 F.3d 737, 740 

n.1 (9th Cir. 2012).

Therefore, Plaintiff may not maintain a claim against CDCR.

2. Eight Amendment Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

For claims arising out of medical care in prison, Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical 

need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further significant injury or 

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 12 Filed 06/26/13 Page 3 of 6
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

the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was 

deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett v. 

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s 

pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 

(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which 

entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. Deliberate indifference may be 

shown “when 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.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 

(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dileo deliberately interfered with prescribed 

medical treatment by refusing pain medication and additional treatment. His allegations, however, are 

too vague to support a cause of action. As explained above, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on 

its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

Plaintiff’s complaint contains little, if any, factual information. Although he may recite the 

legal elements of an Eighth Amendment claim, he does not set forth any facts upon which to base his 

claim. For example, he does not describe the facts surrounding Defendant Dileo’s treatment or why he 

believes that Defendant Dileo was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. He also states 

that Defendant Lopez refused to give him an MRI, but he provides no factual context. Without factual 

information, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s allegations state a cognizable claim. “A 

plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally 

involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 

1998).

Similarly, all of his allegations against Defendant Biter, and some of his allegations against 

Defendant Lopez, are made on “information and belief.” Compl. 4. Again, Plaintiff’s allegations 

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 12 Filed 06/26/13 Page 4 of 6
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

relating to Defendants Biter and Lopez are little more than legal conclusion without factual support. 

He concludes that they have a program in place to deny pain medications, but he provides no facts to 

support his claim.

Accordingly, for these reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may 

be granted.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff 

with one opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes in good faith he can cure the 

deficiency identified above. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 

809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding 

new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) 

(no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

676-677. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and it must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted under section 1983;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and 

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 12 Filed 06/26/13 Page 5 of 6
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

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:13-cv-00567-RRB Document 12 Filed 06/26/13 Page 6 of 6