Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00475/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00475-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Cryer
Defendant
W. Koker
Defendant
Robert Medina
Plaintiff
S. Sherman
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Robert Medina is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff declined magistrate judge jurisdiction and this matter was 

therefore referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302. (ECF No. 5.)

 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed April 6, 2016. 

I.

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

ROBERT MEDINA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

S. SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 05/20/16 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

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 

screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be facially plausible, which 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely 

consistent with‟ a defendant‟s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names S. Sherman (Warden), C. Cryer (Chief Medical Officer), and W. Koker 

(Medical Doctor), as Defendants.

Plaintiff is in need of surgery on his left shoulder and lower back. Neurologist surgeon, DR. 

Smith recommends surgery on Plaintiff‟s left shoulder. Orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Smith recommends 

surgery on Plaintiff‟s left shoulder. 

On August 28, 2009, another doctor was going to do surgery on Plaintiff‟s shoulder. P. Virk 

recommends that Plaintiff stay on Morphine until he can have surgery. Dr. Koker continues to 

disregard the truth of Plaintiff‟s medical needs as well as disregard all recommendations. This 

“deliberate indifference” is causing Plaintiff to continually suffer serious pain daily by denying 

Morphine for pain and denying surgery. 

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 05/20/16 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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Section 1983 Linkage

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). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, 

but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada 

ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 

386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff 

must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each 

defendant‟s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep‟t of 

Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th 

Cir. 2011). 

B. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

 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 at 1096). 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. 

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 05/20/16 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

 Plaintiff contends that Dr. Koker has failed to provide him with the necessary and recommended 

surgery and pain medication. However, Plaintiff‟s allegations fail to give rise to a constitutional claim 

for deliberate indifference. “A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or 

between medical professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to 

deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 

242 (9th Cir. 1989)), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 

(9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d at 1122-23 (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 

332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, Plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was 

medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious 

disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, “[m]edical malpractice does not become a 

constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 

(1977); Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3dat 987-88; Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d at 1122.

 At most, Plaintiff has demonstrated a difference of medical opinion among his treating doctors 

or a difference in opinion between him and medical personnel regarding his need for surgery. Indeed, 

as stated in the third level response to Plaintiff‟s medical appeals, dated December 9, 2015:

On August 26, 2015, you were evaluated by your PCP for follow up. It was noted you had 

been seen by three different orthopedic surgeons with one recommending Non-Steroidal AntiInflammatories (NSAIDS) and aggressive physical therapy (PT), the second one performed 

extensive manipulation under anesthesia and the third one recommending continued aggressive 

PT and NSAIDS with steroidal injections. These have all been completed. The last 

orthopedists opinion was, due to severe adhesive capsulitis with limitation of movement; the 

benefit of surgery was not guaranteed and may further damage your shoulder. You were then 

seen by another orthopedist that also indicated operating on a stiff shoulder will aggravate the 

problem further. NSAIDS and further PT were recommended noting you were right handed. 

You were informed surgical intervention would not be a wise approach at this time. It was 

noted further information from the Orthopedic Surgeon was needed prior to requesting surgical 

intervention. You also complained of chronic lower back pain. IT was noted you had been 

evaluated by a neuro surgeon who recommended bilateral L4-5 and L5-S1 laminectomy and 

fusion; however, this was denied, failing to meet InterQual criteria by regional Quality 

management. 

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 05/20/16 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

On August 27, 2015, your case was presented to the Medical Authorization Review (MAR) 

committee. The MAR committee did not agree with the recommendations to proceed with 

surgery. Recommendations were to continue with current regimen and refer you to a physical 

medicine specialist. You have an appointment pending scheduling. 

On October 21, 2005, documentation indicates your accommodation chrono was updated to 

reflect permanent ground floor-no stairs, bottom bunk, transport vehicle with lift, special cuffing 

for non-emergent escort or transportation. Lifting restrictions of no lifting more than nineteen 

pounds, no rooftop work, no ladders, no hazardous machinery, no sharp objects and no 

operating a motorized vehicle.

(ECF No. 1, Compl. at 5-6.1) Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for deliberate 

indifference against Dr. Koker or Dr. Cryer. 

C. Supervisory Liability 

Supervisory personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of subordinate 

employees based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 

977 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 

(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “A 

supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, 

or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor‟s wrongful conduct and the 

constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Snow, 681 F.3d at 989) (internal quotation 

marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915-16. “Under the latter 

theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if 

supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of 

constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 

(citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff seeks liability against Warden Sherman. Plaintiff‟s complaint is devoid of any allegations 

supporting the existence of a supervisory liability claim against Warden Sherman. The only basis for 

such a claim would be respondeat superior, which is precluded under section 1983. 

 

1

References herein to page numbers are to the Court‟s ECF pagination headers.

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 05/20/16 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

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties 

and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a 

constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 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 supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All 

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed April 6, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

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

amended complaint; and

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 05/20/16 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

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: May 19, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00475-AWI-SAB Document 8 Filed 05/20/16 Page 7 of 7