Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03780/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03780-2/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

TERRY LEO KRAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEDVIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03780-HSG 

ORDER SCREENING SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, an inmate at Napa State Hospital, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that prison officials at Mendocino County Jail, where he was previously 

housed, violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) (Docket 

No. 12) is currently before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. 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. 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).

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 

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 16 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 7
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

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations [in order to state a claim], . . . 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 essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff’s initial complaint (Docket No. 1) named Dr. Medvin, RN Claire Teske, Sheriff 

Tom Allman, Captain T. Pearce, California Forensic Medical Group (“CFMG”), and Mendocino 

County as defendants. Docket No. 1 at 2. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 

because Plaintiff failed to provide facts linking the defendants identified by name to his allegations 

of wrongdoing; because he failed to identify how CFMG acted under color of state law; and 

because he failed to allege any conduct by Mendocino County. Docket No. 6 at 2–4. 

On December 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, again naming Dr. 

Medvin, RN Claire Teske, Sheriff Tom Allman, Captain T. Pearce, CFMG, and Mendocino 

County as defendants, and adding RN Johns as a defendant. Docket No. 7 at 2. After screening 

the first amended complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff had stated a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim against Dr. Medvin, Sheriff Allman, Captain Pearce, and RN Johns, and 

ordered that these defendants be served with the first amended complaint. Id. at 2 and 5. The 

Court dismissed with prejudice the due process claim against Sheriff Allman for failure to state a 

claim. Id. at 3. The Court dismissed RN Teske from the action because Plaintiff failed to allege 

any conduct by RN Teske. Id. at 3. The Court dismissed Mendocino County from the action 

because Plaintiff had failed to plead facts that indicated that Mendocino County had a formal 

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 16 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 7
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

policy or longstanding custom that was the moving force behind the constitutional violations; and 

dismissed CFMG for failure to plead facts indicating that CFMG was personally involved in the 

constitutional violations. Id. at 3–4. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his claims against 

Mendocino County and CFMG and correct the deficiencies identified by the Court. Id. at 4–5.

C. Legal Claims

In the SAC, Plaintiff again names Mendocino County, CFMG, Sheriff Tom Allman, 

Captain Pearce, RN Johns, Dr. Medvin, and RN Teske as defendants. SAC at 2.

According to the SAC, since Plaintiff’s arrival at Mendocino County Jail on January 8, 

2015, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain medical care despite his efforts and his medical 

conditions. SAC at 10. Dr. Medvin took away Plaintiff’s seizure medication, causing Plaintiff to 

be injured on May 27, 2015 when he suffered a seizure and fell. Id. at 5. For the month following 

the seizure, Plaintiff was placed in an observation cell that was brightly lit twenty-four hours a 

day, with “blatant disregard” for his sensitivity to bright lights. Id. at 10. Dr. Medvin also refused 

to honor an outside doctor’s prescription for Excedrin that was intended to treat Plaintiff’s 

migraines. Id.

In addition, Plaintiff’s left shoulder is “severely damaged.” SAC at 5. An x-ray of 

Plaintiff’s left shoulder did not show any damage so Dr. Medvin has refused to treat Plaintiff’s left 

shoulder. Id. Plaintiff alleges that an MRI of his left shoulder would show the damage. 

Plaintiff’s request for an MRI has been denied and Plaintiff was informed that he would not 

receive an MRI unless he paid for it himself, at a cost of $2,100. Id. Plaintiff’s left shoulder 

sustained additional injury when he fell while bring transported in a county transport van. Id. at 6. 

Plaintiff sought medical care for this injury, but RN Teske denied him access to a doctor, and Dr. 

Medvin refused to see Plaintiff. Id. at 6 and 9. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Medvin instructed the Mendocino County Jail staff to deny 

him all medications, including aspirin. SAC at 5 and 6. 

Plaintiff informed Sheriff Tom Allman and Captain Pearce about his inability to secure 

needed medical treatment, but neither Sheriff Allman nor Captain Peace secured medical care for 

him. SAC at 7. Captain Pearce informed Plaintiff in writing that if he wished to have an MRI of 

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 16 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 7
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

his left shoulder, he would need to pay $2,100. Id. at 7. RN Johns refused to provide Plaintiff

with pain medication free of charge. Id. at 8.

Plaintiff alleges that Mendocino County and CFMG have a policy that an inmate will not 

receive care unless he pays for it himself. SAC at 3. Plaintiff also alleges that when he arrived at 

Mendocino County Jail, he was unable to obtain medical care because Dr. Medvin was on 

vacation and the jail failed to arrange for a “backup doctor.” Id. at 10. 

Liberally construed, the SAC again states a claim that Dr. Medvin, Sheriff Allman, Captain 

Pearce, RN Teske, and RN Johns were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in 

violation of 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 by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th 

Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s allegations that Mendocino County and CFMG have a policy that inmates 

will not receive medical care unless they pay for such care, and that Mendocino County does not 

provide backup medical care when their doctors are out on vacation, also state cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claims. Estelle, 429 U.S. 103–04.

Plaintiff alleges that Sheriff Allman violated his due process rights under the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendment “to be free from an abuse . . . of discretion on the part of prison officials.” 

SAC at 7. This due process claim was dismissed with prejudice in the Court’s December 23, 2015 

Order of Partial Service. See Docket No. 10 at 3 (noting that substantive due process is expanded 

only reluctantly, and that because Plaintiff’s claim is afforded protection by the Eighth 

Amendment, it should be analyzed under that standard rather than under the rubric of substantive 

due process). Plaintiff was not granted leave to amend this claim. See id. For the same reasons 

set forth in the Court’s December 23, 2015 Order of Partial Service, the Court again dismisses 

with prejudice the due process claim against Sheriff Allman. See id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. The SAC (Docket No. 12) is the operative complaint in this case. See, e.g., Ferdik 

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (amended complaint supersedes prior 

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 16 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 7
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

complaints). Plaintiff’s due process claim against Sheriff Tom Allman is DISMISSED with 

prejudice, and without leave to amend. As discussed above, liberally construed, the allegations set 

forth in the SAC state cognizable claims that Dr. Medvin, Sheriff Allman, Captain Pearce, RN 

Teske, RN Johns, Mendocino County, and California Forensic Medical Group were deliberately 

indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall 

serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the SAC (Docket No. 12), and a copy of this order 

upon defendant RN Claire Teske at the Mendocino County Jail, 951 Low Gap Rd, Ukiah, CA 

95482, and upon defendants Mendocino County and California Forensic Medical Group at County 

Counsel, County of Mendocino, Administration Center, 501 Low Gap Road, Rm. 1030, Ukiah, 

CA 95482. Pursuant to the Court’s December 23, 2015 Order of Partial Service (Docket No. 10), 

the Clerk of the Court has already issued summons for Dr. Medvin, Sheriff Tom Allman, Captain 

Pearce, and RN Johns, who remain defendants in this case. See Docket No. 11.

3. The briefing schedule set in the Court’s December 23, 2015 Order of Partial 

Service (Docket No. 10) is vacated. 

4. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the Court orders as follows:

a. No later than 91 days from the date this Order is filed, Defendants must file 

and serve a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. If Defendants are of the 

opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, Defendants must so inform the 

Court prior to the date the motion is due. A motion for summary judgment must be accompanied 

by a Rand notice so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely, and adequate notice of what is required of 

him in order to oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice 

requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served 

concurrently with summary judgment motion). A motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

available administrative remedies similarly must be accompanied by a Wyatt notice. Stratton v. 

Buck, 697 F.3d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 2012).

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the summary judgment or other dispositive motion 

must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the 

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 16 Filed 05/02/16 Page 5 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion is filed. Plaintiff must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding summary judgment 

provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff also must bear in mind the notice and warning regarding motions to dismiss for nonexhaustion provided later in this order as he prepares his opposition to any motion to dismiss. 

c. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than 14 days after the date the 

opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No 

hearing will be held on the motion. 

5. Plaintiff is advised that a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must 

do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be 

granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact – that is, if there is no real dispute about 

any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing 

makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn 

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out 

specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, 

as provided in Rule 56(c), that contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and 

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit 

your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. 

If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial. Rand v. 

Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (App. A).

Plaintiff also is advised that a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust available 

administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) will, if granted, end your case, albeit without 

prejudice. You must “develop a record” and present it in your opposition in order to dispute any 

“factual record” presented by defendants in their motion to dismiss. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 

1108, 1120 n.14 (9th Cir. 2003).

(The Rand and Wyatt notices above do not excuse Defendants’ obligation to serve said 

notices again concurrently with motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust available administrative 

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 16 Filed 05/02/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

remedies and motions for summary judgment. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939).

6. All communications by Plaintiff with the Court must be served on Defendants’

counsel by mailing a true copy of the document to Defendants’ counsel. The Court may disregard 

any document which a party files but fails to send a copy of to his opponent. Until a defendant’s 

counsel has been designated, Plaintiff may mail a true copy of the document directly to the 

defendant, but once a defendant is represented by counsel, all documents must be mailed to 

counsel rather than directly to that defendant. 

7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16 is required 

before the parties may conduct discovery.

9. Plaintiff is responsible for prosecuting this case. Plaintiff must promptly keep the 

Court informed of any 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). Plaintiff must file a notice of change of address in every 

pending case every time he is moved to a new facility.

9. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than the deadline sought 

to be extended and must be accompanied by a showing of good cause.

10. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on any document he submits to the Court for consideration in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

May 2, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-03780-HSG Document 16 Filed 05/02/16 Page 7 of 7