Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00042/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00042-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Johnson
Plaintiff
Remotigoe
Defendant
Shaw
Defendant
Tally
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

TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O SHAW, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-00042 DLB PC

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

EITHER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR 

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO 

PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Timothy Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on January 3, 2013. On October 9, 

2013, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found the complaint failed to state a 

cognizable claim. The Court dismissed the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint. 

On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). He names 

Correctional Officers Shaw and Remotigoe, and Nurse Tally 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 

Case 1:13-cv-00042-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

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. 

§ 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. 

Case 1:13-cv-00042-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison in Corcoran, California, 

where the events giving rise to this action occurred.

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff states he is a high risk patient who suffers from 

hypokinesia with a left ventricular hypertrophy. He states his heart only operates at a 40% 

capacity which requires him to take nitroglycerin pills. He further states he is in the Mental 

Health Service Delivery System.

On August 23, 2011, while in his cell at California State Prison, Corcoran, Plaintiff 

started calling for the floor officers to notify them that he was under duress and having chest 

pains due to his underlying heart condition. Plaintiff states that a few minutes after he called out 

for help, Correctional Officer Shaw came to his cell and stated, “What is it now, Johnson?” 

Plaintiff responded, “I’m having chest pains; I have heart problems,” whereupon Plaintiff took 

his second nitroglycerin pill. Plaintiff informed Defendant Shaw that he needed help, that he 

was only supposed to take one pill every five minutes as needed for a maximum of three pills. 

Plaintiff states Defendant Shaw did not activate his emergency response button for 

approximately 15 to 20 more minutes. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Shaw deliberately, 

intentionally and maliciously waited to call for medical assistance, which in turn caused Plaintiff 

unnecessary pain.

After medical assistance was summoned, Plaintiff was taken to the medical clinic. Once 

at the medical clinic, Nurse Tally came to Plaintiff’s aid. However, Plaintiff refused medical 

assistance. Plaintiff demanded to be seen by another nurse or doctor, because he feared for his 

safety based on his prior dealings with Nurse Tally. Nurse Tally then directed personnel to place 

Plaintiff on his gurney against the wall where he waited for another 20 to 30 minutes. Plaintiff 

states he had chest pains, dizziness and numbness to his left side. After some time, the feeling 

returned to his arms and legs and he was told to return to his cell.

Case 1:13-cv-00042-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff was called from his housing unit to the medical clinic for 

his weekly blood pressure check. As Plaintiff approached the clinic, he stopped Correctional 

Officer Lopez outside of the clinic and asked him who was working in the clinic that morning. 

After Plaintiff was informed who was working in the clinic, he notified Lopez that he wished to 

refuse any medical attention from any staff member who he had filed a complaint against or who 

he is currently in litigation against. As he was having this conversation with Lopez, Correctional 

Officer Remotigoe approached. Remotigoe then told Plaintiff, “Johnson, ain’t nothing wrong 

with you. Nurse Tally told me what happened already, so stop being so dramatic and come in the 

clinic.” Plaintiff responded that he “would rather die than to be treated and abused by these 

medical staff and personnel.” Defendant Remotigoe responded, “You have no rights that say 

you can refuse or pick who you want to be treated by.” Plaintiff then asked to speak to a medical 

supervisor, but his request was denied. Plaintiff then told Remotigoe that he was obstructing his 

medical care, to which Remotigoe stated, “I ain’t got time for this shit! Is you coming in or not?” 

Plaintiff again asked for a medical supervisor but was denied. Plaintiff then advised Remotigoe 

that he would be filing a complaint against him, at which time Remotigoe stated, “Read my lips. 

You are not the only who knows how to file paperwork; I’m not Nurse Tally.” Plaintiff states 

that Remotigoe filed a false rules violation report two days later in retaliation.

C. ANALYSIS

1. Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference

For Eighth Amendment claims arising out of medical care in prison, 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 v. Rotman, 680 F.3d

1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett v. Penner, 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 

Case 1:13-cv-00042-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

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 v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 

978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Plaintiff contends Defendant Shaw failed to summon medical assistance with his 

emergency button for approximately 15 to 20 minutes while Plaintiff was undergoing chest 

pains. According to the complaint, Plaintiff called for help and Shaw responded. Plaintiff 

notified Shaw that he was having chest pains and needed help. He further states he informed 

Shaw that he had been directed to take one nitroglycerin pill every five minutes with a maximum 

of three pills for such an episode. He states he took his second pill in front of Shaw at that time. 

He states that approximately 15 to 20 minutes later, Shaw summoned help. The Court finds this 

allegation too vague to state a claim that Shaw failed to respond to a serious medical need. In 

addition, there is no harm alleged. Plaintiff was having an episode of chest pains, he took his 

medications as directed, Shaw summoned assistance, and the episode resolved while at the clinic. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendant Shaw.

Plaintiff contends Nurse Tally was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs by 

failing to obtain treatment for Plaintiff’s complaints of chest pains. However, Plaintiff admits 

that Nurse Tally came to his aid but he refused. After his refusal, Plaintiff waited on his gurney 

and his chest pains resolved. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state an Eighth Amendment 

claim against Defendant Tally.

2. First Amendment Retaliation

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 

(9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. 

Case 1:13-cv-00042-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some 

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that 

such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did 

not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-

68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim 

v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is based on his belief that he was retaliated against because of 

his legal actions and prisoner complaints involving Defendants. He alleges that Defendant 

Remotigoe threatened Plaintiff that he could also file paperwork when Plaintiff threatened 

Remotigoe with the filing of a complaint. Plaintiff contends that Remotigoe subsequently filed a 

false rules violation report against Plaintiff. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff states a First Amendment retaliation claim against 

Defendant Remotigoe. He does not state a retaliation claim against any other Defendant.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint states the following cognizable claims: (1) retaliation in violation of 

the First Amendment against Defendant Remotigoe. It does not state any further claims against 

any other Defendants. 

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he 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). Further, Plaintiff is notified that his amended 

complaint supersedes 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 

superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, this will be his final opportunity. 

Case 1:13-cv-00042-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 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

If Plaintiff is willing to proceed on his cognizable claim, he may notify the Court in 

writing. The Court will then dismiss Plaintiff’s other claims and Defendants, and provide 

Plaintiff with further instructions regarding service of a summons and the complaint. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court 

in this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended 

complaint and is willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified above. 

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00042-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 10/20/14 Page 7 of 7