Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01788/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01788-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Kenamori
Defendant
San Joaquin Community Hospital
Defendant
Lewis James Satterfield
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEWIS JAMES SATTERFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOAQUIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01788 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lewis James Satterfield (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

November 4, 2013.

1

 He names the San Joaquin Community Hospital and David Kenamori, M.D., as 

Defendants. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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. 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate on November 15, 2013.

Case 1:13-cv-01788-DLB Document 15 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 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

2

§ 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 is currently incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, 

California. The instant complaint concerns events which took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated 

at Avenal State Prison. 

Plaintiff alleges the following. On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff was admitted to San Joaquin 

Community Hospital due to severe anemia. Plaintiff was placed under the care of David Kenamori, 

Case 1:13-cv-01788-DLB Document 15 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 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

3

M.D.

On November 12, 2011, Plaintiff reported to the staff that he believed he was suffering a 

stroke. The nursing staff conducted a basic push-pull test and determined Plaintiff was not suffering 

a stroke. He was returned to Avenal State Prison.

On November 18, 2011, Plaintiff was transferred to Coalinga Regional Medical Center where 

a CT scan was conducted. The CT scan revealed that Plaintiff had suffered a non-hemorrhagic 

infarct (a stroke in layman’s terms) in the right frontal lobe. 

Plaintiff seeks damages for pain and suffering, loss of future income, cost of retraining, and 

living expenses, and future medical expenses. He seeks compensatory damages in the amount of 

$500,000.00 and punitive damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00. 

C. DISCUSSION

1. Rule 8 and Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff is required to prove that (1) each defendant acted under color of 

state law and (2) each defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. 

Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff must prove that each 

defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 

934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983, and therefore, each 

defendant is only liable for his own misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 129 S.Ct. 

1937, 1948-49 (2009). 

Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires sufficient factual detail to allow the 

Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 

2009). “Such a statement must simply give defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and 

the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkeiwicz v. Sorema, NA, 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). “While a 

plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” 

Doe I v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

Here, Plaintiff does not link any named Defendant with any conduct. In addition, Plaintiff 

Case 1:13-cv-01788-DLB Document 15 Filed 10/20/14 Page 3 of 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

4

cannot name the entire San Joaquin Community Hospital as Defendants. Rather, he should only 

name individual defendants who were involved in his care, and against whom he can allege facts to 

state a claim.

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendants.

2. Medical Treatment

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference 

to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), 

overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat 

[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 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, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that any Defendant acted with the requisite state of 

mind. Plaintiff does not allege how any Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need. Plaintiff states he notified hospital staff that he believed he was suffering a stroke. 

Nursing staff responded by doing a push-pull test with negative results. At most, Plaintiff’s 

allegations amount to negligence. Ordinary lack of due care, or even gross negligence, does not 

constitute deliberate indifference.

Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a deliberate indifference claim against any Defendant.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar v. 

Case 1:13-cv-01788-DLB Document 15 Filed 10/20/14 Page 4 of 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

5

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

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 federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 

(2012). 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 supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

amended complaint; and

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

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01788-DLB Document 15 Filed 10/20/14 Page 5 of 5