Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00895/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00895-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sundaram
Defendant
Ricky Wyatt
Plaintiff

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 Ricky Wyatt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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).

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, 

RICKY WYATT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SUNDARAM,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00895-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 5
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

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 Doctor Sundaram as the sole Defendant in this action. 

On August 22, 2014, Plaintiff sustained an eye bone fracture and serious right shoulder injury 

as a result of an altercation. On this date, Plaintiff was transported to Mercy Hospital. Plaintiff 

received an x-ray for his eye fracture prior to arriving at Mercy Hospital, but Dr. Sundaram denied an 

initial MRI for his shoulder injury. 

Plaintiff was approved for an MRI at Mercy Hospital, but the request was subsequently denied 

by Dr. Sundaram and Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital without treatment for his shoulder 

injury. Plaintiff was forced to write multiple medical forms requesting medical service, and it was 

only after Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance that his request for an MRI was approved. 

Plaintiff was required to wear handcuffs behind his back at his medical examinations which 

caused serious pain and suffering, and placed Plaintiff in more imminent danger of further injury. 

Plaintiff developed frozen shoulder based on the initial denial of an MRI.

///

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 5
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. 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. 

Plaintiff admits that he had surgery on December 18, 2014, but claims it was five months after 

his injury and he was in pain based on Dr. Sundaram‟s initial denial of an MRI on August 22, 2014. 

Plaintiff saw his primary care physician on August 26, 2014, and was told that an MRI was ordered. 

However, prison officials claim there is no mention of an MRI during that examination. The exhibits 

attached to Plaintiff‟s claim belie his claim that the initial denial of an MRI by Dr. Sundaram was in 

conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff‟s health. “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 at 1082-83; 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 

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 5
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

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).

As stated in the second level response to Plaintiff‟s inmate appeal,

Review of your records revealed that the CME did not deny a request for a MRI related to the 

shoulder injury sustained on 8/22/2014. You saw your Primary Care Physician (PCP) on 

8/26/2014. There is no mention of a MRI in that encounter and no record of a request for a 

MRI. You saw your PCP again on 9/9/2014 and a RFS was written for a MRI of your right 

shoulder. The CME approved the RFS on 9/17/2014. The MRI was performed on 10-15-2014 

as stated in your First Level Response.

(ECF No. 1 at 33.) Although Plaintiff submits a letter from Mercy Hospital which indicates that Dr. 

Sundaram denied the request for an MRI, there is simply no showing this decision was done in 

conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff‟s health. Indeed, Plaintiff was evaluated by his 

PCP on August 26, 2014 (just four days following the incident resulting in the injury), and then again 

on September 9, 2014, and an MRI was ordered. An MRI was conducted on October 15, 2014, and 

surgery was conducted on December 18, 2014. Based on the facts as set forth in the complaint, there 

is no showing that Dr. Sandaram‟s initial denial of an MRI was done with “deliberate indifference” or 

that the results of Plaintiff‟s treatment regimen would have been different had an initial MRI been 

conducted. The fact that Dr. Sandaram may have been negligent is not sufficient to give rise to a 

constitutional violation. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990 (an Eighth 

Amendment claim may not be premised on even gross negligence by a physician). The Court will 

grant Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint, if he believes he can do so in good faith.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

granted. Plaintiff will be granted one additional opportunity to file an amended complaint within 

thirty (30) days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff fails to cure the 

deficiencies outlined herein, the amended complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 

claim. 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). 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 5
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

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 June 1, 2015, 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

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: January 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00895-DAD-SAB Document 17 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 5