Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00484/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00484-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Evans
Defendant
Charles D. Lee
Defendant
Tony Tran
Defendant
Gino R. Ynclan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINO R. YNCLAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

M. EVANS, Warden; CHARLES D. LEE,

Chief Medical Officer; and TONY TRAN,

Head Pharmacist, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-0484 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE AFTER

AMENDMENT

This is a civil rights case filed by a state prisoner. The complaint involves events

which occurred while plaintiff was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison. The complaint

was dismissed with leave to amend in the initial review order. Plaintiff has amended. The

court will now review the amended claims to determine whether they should be served. 

See 28 U.S.C § 1915A(b)(1),(2) (court must screen prisoner complaints and dismiss claims

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief). 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleged in his original complaint that he had a “skin disorder” for which he

received no treatment, despite repeated promises, from October of 2005 until August of

2006. He also alleged that after he was finally seen, the pharmacy did not give him the

prescribed medication until January 12, 2007. He claimed that his many administrative

appeals were granted, but that no relief resulted.

///

Case 4:07-cv-00484-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The original complaint was dismissed because none of the defendants were

mentioned in the “Statement of Claim” and because plaintiff had not pleaded sufficient facts

to allege that he had a serious medical need. In the amendment plaintiff explains that his

skin disease is a hereditary condition known as ichthyosis, and that it causes dry, scaly skin

that cracks and bleeds. He says it is very painful. This is sufficient to allege a serious

medical need.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Lee was informed of his condition and that it was not

being treated by way of plaintiff’s administrative appeals, but failed to ensure that treatment

was given. He also alleges that defendant Tran, the head pharmacist, refused to fill the

prescriptions. These allegations are sufficient to require a response from these two

defendants.

Plaintiff concedes that his claim against Evans, the warden, is a respondeat superior

claim. Such claims cannot be maintained in the Section 1983 case such as this. See

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The claims against Evans will be

dismissed with prejudice. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. Plaintiff's claim against defendant Evans are DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. The clerk shall issue summons and serve, without prepayment of fees, copies of

the file, including copies of this Order, upon the following defendants: Charles D. Lee, Chief

Medical Officer; and Tony Tran, Head Pharmacist. Plaintiff states that these defendants

can be found at Salinas Valley State Prison. 

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:

a. Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive

motion within sixty days of the date this order is entered. If defendants are of the opinion

that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, they shall so inform the court prior

to the date their summary judgment motion is due. 

///

Case 4:07-cv-00484-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

b. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,”

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th

Cir. 2003).

c. If Defendants wish to file a reply brief, they shall do so no later than fifteen

days after service of the opposition. 

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is

due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date. 

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on deendants, or

defendants' counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the

document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

6. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\ynclan0484.SRV.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-00484-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case

dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue

of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result

of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as

provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not

submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered

against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be

no trial.

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)

If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are

seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.

You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that

you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that

is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they

are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions. 

If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed

and there will be no trial. 

Case 4:07-cv-00484-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 4