Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02044-5/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

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

 On February 1, 2006, the court determined service of process was appropriate for 1

defendants Runnels, James, Roche and Rohlfing. A waiver of service of summons form was

executed on behalf of defendant Runnels on April 5, 2006. (Docket No. 37.) To date, however,

defendant Runnels has not filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2044 LKK JFM P

vs.

NORMAN BARON, C.M.O., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his fourth amended complaint, filed September 26, 2005,

plaintiff claims that his constitutional rights were violated by defendants’ deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. 

On April 5, 2006, defendants James and Roche filed a motion to dismiss this

action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust

administrative remedies prior to suit. On July 6, 2006, defendant Rohlfing joined in the motion

to dismiss. On February 1, 2006, plaintiff received the notice required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 1

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 11
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

2

F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) with respect to the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

“Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides:

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under

[42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.

This exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).”

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002). Exhaustion must precede the filing of

the complaint and compliance with the statute is not achieved by satisfying the exhaustion

requirement during the course of an action. Id. Defendants have the burden of establishing that

plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120; see also Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 936 (9th Cir. 2005). 

 California’s Department of Corrections provides a four-step

grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an

administrative decision or perceived mistreatment. Within fifteen

working days of “the event or decision being appealed,” the inmate

must ordinarily file an “informal” appeal, through which “the

appellant and staff involved in the action or decision attempt to

resolve the grievance informally.” Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, §§

3084.5(a), 3084.6(c). [Footnote omitted.] If the issue is not

resolved during the informal appeal, the grievant next proceeds to

the first formal appeal level, usually conducted by the prison's

Appeals Coordinator. Id. §§ 3084.5(b), 3084.6(c). Next are the

second level, providing review by the institution's head or a

regional parole administrator, and the third level, in which review

is conducted by a designee of the Director of the Department of

Corrections. [Footnote omitted.] Id. § 3084.5(e)(1)-(2).

Brown, at 929-30.

The defendants who brought the motion to dismiss assert that plaintiff has failed

to exhaust administrative remedies as to allegations contained in the fourth amended complaint. 

Defendants note that the allegations upon which plaintiff relies are supported by incidents that

occurred in 2004 and 2005, long after this case was initiated.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 11
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

 Plaintiff has filed five separate complaints in this action. (Docket Nos. 1, 15, 20, 25 & 2

27.) Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the

case. Plaintiff can, however, request that the court append previously submitted exhibits to the

newly-filed complaint, if appropriate. 

3

Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 29, 2003. In his fourth amended

complaint, plaintiff contends defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious need for

medical care. In support of these claims, plaintiff refers to incidents that occurred on March 2,

2004 (Exhibit A); March 31, 2004 (Exhibit B); January 10, 2005 and November 8, 2005, 

(Exhibit C); January 8, 2005, February 2, 2005, February 10, 2005, and March 16, 2005 (Exhibit

D); April 27, 2005, and May 20, 2005 (Exhibit E); February 10, 2004 (Exhibit 1); May 19, 2005,

July 12, 2005, and June 28, 2005 (Exhibit 2). In their motion to dismiss, moving defendants

point out that all of these dates took place after the 2003 filing date of this complaint;

accordingly, they contend plaintiff could not have exhausted his administrative remedies as to

these incidents before filing the instant action.

In his opposition, plaintiff protests that his claims were exhausted and directs the

court’s attention to exhibits attached to plaintiff’s original and first amended complaint. Plaintiff

contends that grievance log #03-01080 is the correct number demonstrating he has exhausted,

and appends a copy of the second level response for purposes of confirming the log number only.

The court has carefully reviewed all of the exhibits appended to plaintiff’s original

complaint and to his subsequent amended complaints. The exhibits that address plaintiff’s 2

exhaustion of administrative remedies demonstrate the following:

1. Plaintiff received a Director’s Level Decision in HDSP 02-01055 dated

November 12, 2002. (September 29, 2003 Complaint, Ex. 1 [Docket No. 1].) Petitioner alleged

that 

while he was housed in the California State Prison, San Quentin

Administrative Segregation Unit he was issued a CDC Form 128-

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 11
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

4

C, Medical Chrono for personal shoes for support to his back. 

Since his arrival at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) he has not

been issued a like chrono and his shoes were confiscated in

Receiving & Release when he arrived at HDSP. [Plaintiff] states

that he was also referred to physical therapy and received one

treatment before the therapist resigned. The therapist and the clinic

doctor both recommended that [plaintiff] have a transcutaneous

electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit for pain control but the

Chrono Committee denied his request. [Plaintiff] requests that he

be able to visit a doctor on this issue, and that the CDC Form 128-

C Medical Chrono be restored.

(Id., Ex. 1) In his second appeal, plaintiff complained of pain in his neck and lower back. (Id.,

Ex. 5)

2. Plaintiff received a second level appeal response issued in Log No. HDSP-C03-01080 on August 8, 2003. (September 29, 2003 Complaint, last exhibit; also appended to

Docket No. 40.) In this grievance, plaintiff requested that he be determined to have a “serious

medical condition,” renewed his request for a shoe chrono, and requested an insole chrono. 

[Plaintiff] states that he has a shoe chrono, which stipulates that his

condition is determined not to be life threatening or debilitating. 

Debilitate, meaning to sap the strength of. [Plaintiff] alleges that

he has another chrono which stipulates his condition as having

residual arthritis in his ankles and that the inmate is overweight and

needs support, therefore, he can have shoes from the streets. The

inmate alleges that his complaint is how can his condition not be

serious, yet the HDSP chrono states a totally different reason

without an examination to carry this weight since his arrival at

HDSP. The inmate alleges that his challenge is against the HDSP

chrono policy and the neglect by the doctors to examine and

prescribe the proper medicines for the inmate’s medical conditions.

(Id.)

Plaintiff also grieved his treatment during his May 8, 2003 appointment with Dr. James, claiming

that when he sat down to discuss 12 issues with Dr. James, “it seemed as if his duties as a

physician were being dictated to him by the Medical Technical Assistant (MTA).” (Id.) Plaintiff

contended that not one of his 12 issues were “answered” during this appointment. (Id.) 

Dr. Sandham noted that plaintiff had current chronos for a soft-soled state boot, a

beard and a neoprene knee brace, and plaintiff’s chrono for insoles had expired. (Id.) 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 4 of 11
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

5

Plaintiff’s second level appeal was denied and he was advised that he could

appeal this decision to the Director’s Level of Review. (Id.) There is no copy of a Director’s

Level Appeal for grievance Log No. HDSP-C-03-01080 appended to plaintiff’s original

complaint. 

3. Plaintiff appended copies of his grievance HDSP-B 02-01055 to the amended

complaint filed March 29, 2004, including a copy of the Director’s Level Appeal decision. 

(Docket No. 15.) No other grievance forms are appended to this amended complaint.

4. There are no grievance forms appended to the amended complaint filed

September 13, 2004. (Docket No. 20.) While plaintiff appended a few medical records

concerning treatment in 2004, most of the documents appended referred to treatment in 2003.

5. There are no grievance forms appended to the amended complaint filed July

11, 2005. (Docket No. 25.) 

6. There are no grievance forms appended to plaintiff’s fourth amended

complaint filed September 26, 2005. (Docket No. 27.) 

The evidence of record discloses that plaintiff completed the grievance process

only once before this action was filed–meaning he received a Director’s Level Decision–with

respect to grievance number HDSP-B 02-01055 related to his request for a special shoe chrono

for back support, physical therapy and possible TENS treatment for neck and back pain. 

Grievance 02-01055 concerns events that occurred before September 23, 2003. Therefore, this

grievance does not serve to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to new claims identified

in plaintiff’s subsequent complaints.

Despite plaintiff’s claim that he did appeal his second grievance, Log No. HDSPC-03-01080, to the Director’s Level of Review, there is no evidence in the record to so

demonstrate. Plaintiff provided a copy of the second level review, but there is not a Director’s

Level of Review for Log No. HDSP-C-03-01080 appended to any of plaintiff’s complaints on

file herein. The second level of review of this grievance was denied on August 8, 2003; thus, it

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 5 of 11
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

6

appears unlikely that plaintiff had completed an appeal to the Director’s Level by the time this

action was filed on September 23, 2003. Because the third level of review was available to

plaintiff, he was required to exhaust it before commencing this action. Plaintiff does not argue

that administrative remedies for the claims raised in HDSP-C-03-01080 were unavailable. 

Therefore, grievance 03-01080 cannot serve to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to

the new claims raised in his fourth amended complaint. The court finds that plaintiff has failed

to rebut defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to

claims raised in HDSP-C-03-01080. Those claims must be dismissed. 

The remaining question is whether the first grievance exhausted any of the claims

contained in plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. The first grievance reads as follows:

Upon my arrival at this “wretched institution” I came from Ad-seg

in “San Quentin” and was classified with a “chrono” for person[al]

shoes. But they were tak[en] from me in (R&R) and the purpose of

my chrono was for “support” to my back and I informed the (Lt.

Howard) of this but he blew me off with no concern for my

medical needs, telling me that I’ll be seen by the medical staff

which after (10 days) I still have not been seen, and my condition is

stead[il]y worsening and I will see this complaint out with extreme

prejudice.

(Grievance HDSP-B-02-01055, dated May 10, 2002.) In his fourth amended complaint, plaintiff

specifically alleges that on March 2, 2004, he was seen by Dr. James regarding a “number of

concerns, and complaints, which still went un-answered.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff alleges custody

staff had confiscated his insoles and did not order the knee brace previously ordered. (Id.) 

Plaintiff contends on March 31, 2004, he presented to urgent care with a swollen foot that was

leaking fluids. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states the wound was cleaned and dressed, but “still no

mention about surgery [bunionectomy].” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Roche noted that

plaintiff’s surgery had been approved, but the surgery was cancelled without stating why. (Id.) 

Dr. Roche’s progress note states plaintiff 

complains of pain in his bunions on the big toes bilaterally. 

Apparently he had approval for podiatry which was cancelled by

CMO. He requests a repeat referral for this. He claims it is

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 6 of 11
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

7

causing problems with his walking. He requests Naprosyn and

fiber-tabs. Exam is limited to the feet with Stage II bunions;

otherwise essentially normal. 

(Id., Ex. C.) Plaintiff provided further reports and consultations concerning follow-up treatment

for his bunions. (Id., Ex. D.) Dr. Robert J. Parlasca, M.D., examined plaintiff on February 2,

2005, and recommended plaintiff would need a McBride type bunionectomy, and stated the

surgery could be scheduled when it was convenient for the prison. (Id.) Finally, plaintiff

complains he was seen by the fifth different doctor on the yard and referred to the ortho clinic at

HDSP, but plaintiff contends there is no ortho clinic at HDSP. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states HDSP

used to have an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Rohlfing, but believes Dr. Rohlfing has been terminated

from HDSP. (Id.) 

Plaintiff also included an allegation concerning delay in treatment for prostate

cancer. (Id. at 3.) 

Finally, plaintiff provided copies of medical records from 2005 alleging he has

suffered from nerve damage in his arm to his neck to his back. (Id.; [Docket No. 27 at 34-43],

Ex. 1, 2.) Plaintiff was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome on May 19, 2005. (Id., Ex. 2.) 

Plaintiff provides a copy of results obtained from an electromyography performed on plaintiff’s

upper extremity on July 19, 2005. (Id., Ex. 2.) The report reflects the following impression:

1. Right median nerve entrapment at the wrist consistent with

carpal tunnel syndrome, moderate.

2. Normal right ulnar nerve study.

3. No evidence of acute or chronic cervical radiculopathy.

4. No evidence of peripheral neuropathy.

(Id.) Plaintiff alleges his efforts to obtain treatment for these conditions, post-diagnosis, have

been futile. (Id.; [Docket No. 27 at 34-43].)

With respect to the level of specificity required in a prisoner grievance in order for

the court to find that administrative remedies have been exhausted with respect to a particular

claim, the Supreme Court recently has held that the prisoner need not always identify the

particular defendants to his claim in the grievance. Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, 2007 WL

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 7 of 11
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

8

135890, at *19 (Jan. 22, 2007). Previously, in Irvin v. Zamora, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1135 (S.D.

Cal. 2001), the United States District Court for the Southern District of California recognized

that the basic premise of the exhaustion requirement is to put prison officials on notice of any

potential § 1983 claims. Jones confirms the fundamental notice purpose of exhaustion, to the

extent consistent with what an administrative grievance procedure requires. See Jones, 2007 WL

135890, at *18 (benefits of exhaustion include allowing a prison to address complaints before

being subjected to suit).

At a minimum, then, the actions forming the basis of a lawsuit must somehow be

brought to the attention of corrections officials before the court may deem administrative

remedies exhausted. This kind of notice was not provided in this case. In grievance No. 02-

01055, plaintiff raised claims concerning his prior shoe chrono for back support, physical therapy

and possible TENS treatment. There was no mention of a need for surgery, either for his feet or

for nerve damage. While plaintiff complained of pain to his neck and lower back, that is

insufficient to put prison officials on notice concerning his present need for a bunionectomy or

carpal tunnel repair. Compare Gomez v. Winslow, 177 F. Supp. 2d 977 (N.D. Cal.

2001)(plaintiff’s administrative appeal alleging inadequate medical attention to a serious medical

need on the grounds that he had been diagnosed with Hepatitis C and second level appeal

concerning side effects of interferon treatment was sufficient exhaustion of remedies where

second level of review was granted and Gomez was granted all of the relief he had requested

during the pendency of his administrative appeal). The court cannot find that correctional

officials were put on notice of the allegations contained in plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint

because the medical diagnoses on which they rely had not been rendered by the date of the filing

of this action, nor had the incidents upon which plaintiff relied taken place prior to the date of the

filing of this action, thus preventing prison officials from addressing them through the

administrative process prior to suit. 

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 8 of 11
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

9

Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against the defendants bringing the motion to

dismiss that are based on events occurring after this action was filed on September 29, 2003 must

be dismissed. Such claims could not have been exhausted before filing suit. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). 

In light of the foregoing, the court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. However, in an abundance of caution, plaintiff will be

provided one final opportunity to file a fifth amended complaint raising only those claims

addressed in grievance No. 02-01055, specifically, claims concerning his prior shoe chrono,

physical therapy and possible TENS treatment. 

Moreover, plaintiff is advised that in order to prevail on his Eighth Amendment

claim, plaintiff must prove that he had a “serious medical need” and that defendants acted with

“deliberate indifference” to that need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). A medical

need is serious if “the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant

injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,

1059 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Deliberate indifference is proved by

evidence that a prison official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or

safety; the official must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that

a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 825, 837 (1994). Mere negligence is insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. 

Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). “Prison officials are deliberately

indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere

with medical treatment.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations

and quotation marks omitted). Mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison

medical staff as to appropriate medical care also do not give rise to a § 1983 claim. Franklin v.

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 9 of 11
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

10

If plaintiff chooses to file a fifth amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate

how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the fifth amended complaint

must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's

actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto,

633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations

are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff's fifth amended complaint complete. The fifth amended complaint must be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see also Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a fifth amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a fifth amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to dismiss filed April 5, 2006, by defendants James and Roche, is

granted;

2. Defendant Rohlfing’s July 6, 2006, joinder in the motion to dismiss is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s September 26, 2005 fourth amended complaint is dismissed; and

4. Plaintiff is granted 45 days from the date of service of this order to file a fifth

amended complaint raising only those claims addressed in grievance No. 02-01055, and that

complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

the Local Rules of Practice; the fifth amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled “Fifth Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 10 of 11
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

11

copies of the fifth amended complaint; failure to file a fifth amended complaint in accordance

with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

 DATED: February 2, 2007.

1/will2044.mtd

Case 2:03-cv-02044-LKK -JFM Document 50 Filed 02/02/07 Page 11 of 11