Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03123/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03123-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-3123 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 9/23/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LEON LEE MEYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 14-3123 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises Eighth Amendment medical treatment claims against his

medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. The first amended complaint is now before the

Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file a

second amended complaint on or before November 2, 2015. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

Case 3:14-cv-03123-RS Document 32 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-3123 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that 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. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

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. See

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

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that (1) in 2011, Lahey, a nurse at Salinas Valley, was deliberately

indifferent to his case of the shingles, which he contracted from his cellmate; (2) Drs. Mack,

Birdsong, and Kumar, physicians at the prison, were deliberately indifferent to his case of the

shingles at various unspecific times; (3) Drs. Posson, J. Dunlop, and Fernando Tuvera, who

reviewed his medical grievances, failed to approve his transfer to another institution; 

(4) unspecified persons are liable for his contracting various diseases (shingles, Hepatitis B,

and a staph infection) while he had to care for his cellmate; and (5) K. Moore, a Salinas

Valley grievance counselor, cancelled his transfer to another institution. Liberally construed,

Claims 1, 3, and 5 are cognizable under section 1983. 

Case 3:14-cv-03123-RS Document 32 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-3123 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3

Claims 2 and 4 are DISMISSED with leave to amend. It is not sufficient to state

merely that Mack, Birdsong, and Kumar were deliberately indifferent at various unspecified

times. Plaintiff must provide specific details, such as the dates (or approximate dates) on

which he saw these doctors, what symptoms he displayed, what treatment was (or should

have been) administered, a summary of the discussions he had with these doctors, and what

facts show that they were deliberately indifferent. Plaintiff is reminded that these facts are

crucial not only to the survival of his claims against Mack, Birdsong, and Kumar, but also to

the survival of his claims against Posson, J. Dunlop, Fernando Tuvera, and Moore, which are

based in large part on his allegations against his doctors. 

It is also insufficient to assert that the staff at the prison are responsible for the injuries

he suffered while being housed with an infectious cellmate. Plaintiff must provide names of

the persons directly responsible, and how they should have known about the conditions he

faced. 

The following persons and institutions are TERMINATED as defendants in this action

because plaintiff has failed to state specific claims against them: Randy Grounds, Warden of

Salinas Valley, J. Lewis, Deputy Director, S. Njeser, Health Care Services, Dr. Stainer, and

Jeffrey Beard. The Court assumes that he named these persons and institutions in the belief

that they are liable as supervisors. This is not sufficient to state claims against them. There

is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a supervisory relationship over the

defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor “participated in or directed the

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Id. Furthermore,

supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations against them

are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the

supervisors’ personal involvement in their subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948–52 (2009). If plaintiff wishes to allege liability against the

now-dismissed defendants based on supervisory liability, he must allege specific facts

Case 3:14-cv-03123-RS Document 32 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-3123 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

4

sufficient to meet these stringent standards. 

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint

on or before November 2, 2015. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil

case number used in this order (14-3123 RS (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the

previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes

to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be deemed

waived. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of

this action without further notice to plaintiff.

It is 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.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 31) is DENIED without

prejudice. The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional

circumstances.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). A finding of

“exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success

on the merits and an evaluation of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se in light

of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of

America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Neither the need for discovery, nor the fact

that the pro se litigant would be better served with the assistance of counsel, necessarily

qualify the issues involved as complex. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.

Case 3:14-cv-03123-RS Document 32 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 14-3123 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

5

1997). Plaintiff has not shown that exceptional circumstances exist. The Clerk shall

terminate Docket No. 31. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 23, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03123-RS Document 32 Filed 09/23/15 Page 5 of 5