Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02777/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02777-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL DAVID KAUFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02777-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Joel David Kaufman, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the filing fee. 

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or 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. Id. at 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).

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.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . 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 

Case 3:15-cv-02777-JD Document 2 Filed 07/29/15 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

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. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 

the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

Kaufman alleges that he has severe food intolerances that defendants have not properly 

addressed. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment’s 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, 

WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A 

determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need. 

See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059. 

Adequate food is a basic human need protected by the Eighth Amendment. See Keenan v. 

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). The Eighth 

Amendment right to food was clearly established as of at least 2001. Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 

807, 815 (9th Cir. 2009). Denial of food service presents a sufficiently serious condition to meet 

the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference analysis. Id. at 812-13; see, 

e.g., id. at 812 (denial of 16 meals over 23 days was “a sufficiently serious deprivation because 

food is one of life's basic necessities”); id. at 812 n.1 (denial of 2 meals over 9-week period was 

not sufficiently serious to meet objective prong of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference). 

The Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain 

Case 3:15-cv-02777-JD Document 2 Filed 07/29/15 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

health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically pleasing. See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1050 

(9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (Eighth Amendment requires that pretrial detainees be given food that 

meets or exceeds the Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines);

Kaufman states that he is allergic to gluten, soy, and dairy and defendants have ignored 

letters from outside doctors. As a result he has required four Benadryl or cortisone injections after 

severe allergic reactions. He alleges that defendants deny he has a food allergy. He seeks 

monetary relief and for defendants to provide a gluten free lunch, lactose enzymes, and regular 

treatment from a dermatologist. Plaintiff lists seven defendants who are doctors and wardens at 

San Quentin State Prison and Correctional Training Facility, however he fails to describe the 

actions of any of the defendants and how they were personally responsible for the allegations in 

the complaint. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to present additional allegations 

that link each individual defendant to the constitutional deprivation.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must 

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first 

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must 

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to 

amend within the designated time will result in dismissal of this action.

2. It is the 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 

Case 3:15-cv-02777-JD Document 2 Filed 07/29/15 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

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02777-JD Document 2 Filed 07/29/15 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL DAVID KAUFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02777-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 29, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Joel David Kaufman

AT3133

P.O. Box 686

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: July 29, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:15-cv-02777-JD Document 2 Filed 07/29/15 Page 5 of 5