Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02352/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02352-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathleen Allison
Defendant
R. M. Diaz
Defendant
A. Enenmoh
Defendant
S. Frauenheim
Defendant
Gray
Defendant
J. Clark Kelso
Defendant
T. Pepper
Defendant
Florencio Vallejo
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORENCIO VALLEJO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02352-SKO PC 

SCREENING ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Screening Order

I. Screening Standard

Plaintiff Florencio Vallejo, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 17, 2010. The Court is required to

screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against

an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or

any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 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 bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s

1

Case 1:10-cv-02352-AWI-SKO Document 7 Filed 12/13/11 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

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). To state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth factual allegations sufficient to

state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; 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 __, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at

969.

II. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim

A. Summary of Claim

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in

Corcoran. Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Kathleen Allison, Receiver

J. Clark Kelso, Chief Medical Offier A. Enenmoh, Dr. Gray, Lieutenant T. Pepper, Captain S.

Frauenheim, Associate Warden R. M. Diaz, and Does 1-25 arising out of the failure to accommodate

his medical condition. Plaintiff alleges that in May 2009, he was denied the use of a wheelchair to

get to medical appointments and the dining hall. As a result, he was forced to drag himself across

the ground, resulting in cuts, scrapes, and humiliation. Plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently

approved for a wheelchair.

B. Legal Standard

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, Plaintiff must

show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th

Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)) (quotation marks

omitted). The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires Plaintiff to 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) the defendant’s response to the need

was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or

possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference, and deliberate indifference may be

manifested when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it

2

Case 1:10-cv-02352-AWI-SKO Document 7 Filed 12/13/11 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

may be shown by the way in which prison physicians provide medical care. Id. (citation and

quotations omitted). 

C. Discussion

If Plaintiff was unable to walk and he required the use of a wheelchair to get around, the

failure to provide one, which resulted in Plaintiff having to drag himself around on the ground,

supports an Eighth Amendment claim. However, the events at issue occurred in May 2009, and all

of the named defendants are included in this action because they held positions of authority within

the prison system and/or they were involved in reviewing Plaintiff’s inmate appeal grieving the past

misconduct of prison staff. 

Neitherrespondeat superior nor an after-the-fact review of an inmate grievance will support

a claim against Defendants. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; 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 v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must allege sufficient

facts to show that each named defendant, through personal involvement, knowingly disregarded an

excessive risk of harm to his health. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; Starr v. Baca, 652

F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff has not done so and his claim therefore fails.

III. Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

Plaintiff refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in his complaint. However,

there are no facts which would support a viable ADA claim. Plaintiff’s claim arises from the denial

of appropriate care in light of his medical condition, not from intentional discrimination against him

because of a disability. Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing

Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996)); also Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 882 

(8th Cir. 2005); Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s ADA claim fails as a matter of law.

IV. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff does not have a

constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in this action. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965,

970 (9th Cir. 2009); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may

3

Case 1:10-cv-02352-AWI-SKO Document 7 Filed 12/13/11 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

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only

if exceptional circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1981). In making this determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of

success on the merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks

omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed

together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn 789 F.2d at 1331. 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if

it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations

which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The Court is faced with

similar cases almost daily. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied,

without prejudice.

V. Conclusion and Order 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court will

provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1130 (9th Cir. 2000); 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 it must state what

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556

U.S. at __, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. 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 prior 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 it must be

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

Therefore, “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an 

///

4

Case 1:10-cv-02352-AWI-SKO Document 7 Filed 12/13/11 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

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 complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted;

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

amended complaint; and 

5. 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: December 12, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:10-cv-02352-AWI-SKO Document 7 Filed 12/13/11 Page 5 of 5