Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02579/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02579-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Beard
Defendant
Edward Bridgeman
Plaintiff
Department of California Correction
Defendant
Mo
Defendant

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWARD BRIDGEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA 

CORRECTION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2579 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. In Forma Pauperis Application 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a).1 Accordingly, his request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 Nevertheless, plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing 

fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will 

 

1

 The undersigned previously issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of 

this action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to submit a fully completed in forma 

pauperis application or pay the appropriate filing fee. See ECF No. 7. These findings and 

recommendations will be vacated pursuant to this order. 

Case 2:15-cv-02579-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account 

and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly 

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust 

account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court 

each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

II. Legal Standards for Screening Plaintiff’s Complaint 

 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), this 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,” fail to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks 

an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). 

 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair 

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it 

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly at 555). To survive dismissal for failure to 

state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal at 678 (quoting Twombly at 570). “A claim 

has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility 

standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility 

that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly at 556). “Where a complaint pleads 

Case 2:15-cv-02579-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between 

possibility and plausibility of “entitlement to relief.”’” Id. (quoting Twombly at 557). 

A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in his complaint and an 

opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 

III. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

 Pursuant to the instant complaint, plaintiff seeks “219.5 billion dollers [sic]” in damages 

based on his claim that unidentified medical personnel failed to properly treat his cancer, leaving 

plaintiff with “a hole on the lower part of [his] tail bone” that causes constant pain and impairs 

plaintiff’s ability to walk and stand. ECF No. 1 at 3. The only defendant named in this action is 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and its former Secretary, 

Jeffrey Beard (whom plaintiff mistakenly references as “James Beard”). 

 A. No Cognizable Defendant 

Neither CDCR nor the state of California is a proper defendant. See Atascadero State 

Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in 

federal court); Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 364 (9th Cir. 2004) (state agencies). 

Moreover, in the absence of allegations that former CDCR Secretary Beard was 

personally involved in the alleged deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, plaintiff fails to 

state a cognizable claim against him. “A supervisor may be liable [only] if there exists either (1) 

his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal 

connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Hansen 

v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). “There is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). 

Significantly, plaintiff fails to identify any specific individual (e.g., a CDCR physician or 

other medical provider) who was allegedly responsible for the challenged decisions concerning 

plaintiff’s medical care. To state a cognizable claim under Section 1983, plaintiff must allege an 

actual connection or link between the challenged conduct of a specific defendant and the alleged 

deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 

Case 2:15-cv-02579-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “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) (citations omitted). There can be no liability under Section 1983 

unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed 

deprivation. Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 

violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 B. No Cognizable Claim 

More specifically, to state a cognizable claim for unconstitutional medical care, plaintiff 

must allege that a specific defendant engaged in “acts or omissions [that were] sufficiently 

harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to [plaintiff’s] serious medical needs.” Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Plaintiff must allege both that his medical needs were 

objectively serious,2 and that defendants possessed a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson 

v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299 (1991); McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853, 854 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(on remand). The requisite state of mind is “deliberate indifference.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 

U.S. 1, 5 (1992). In Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), the Supreme Court established a 

very demanding standard for “deliberate indifference.” Negligence is insufficient. Id. at 835. 

Even civil recklessness (failure to act in the face of an obvious and unjustifiably high risk of 

harm) is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 836-37. Rather, to state 

a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must allege that a prison 

official “kn[ew] of and disregard [ed] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official 

 

2

 Serious medical needs include conditions in which a failure to treat could result in significant 

injury to plaintiff. “The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find 

important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that 

significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial 

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a ‘serious’ need for medical treatment.” 

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 

F.2d 1332, 1337-41 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing cases)), and Hunt v. Dental Department, 865 F.2d 198, 

200-01 (9th Cir. 1989)), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 

1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

Case 2:15-cv-02579-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 4 of 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 

5

must both be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of 

serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. Stated differently: 

In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of 

two parts. First, the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by 

demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result 

in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain. Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent. This second 

prong . . . is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to 

respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm 

caused by the indifference. 

Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations, punctuation and quotation 

marks omitted); accord, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Lemire v. 

CDCR, 726 F.3d 1062, 1081 (9th Cir. 2013). 

The allegations of the instant complaint fail to meet these standards. While it appears that 

plaintiff has serious medical needs associated with cancer, he does not identify specific problems 

associated with his medical care, nor any medical provider or other individual who “knew of and 

disregarded” a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. 

 C. Dismissal of Complaint and Leave to File an Amended Complaint 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the complaint does not contain “a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that [plaintiff] is entitled to relief,” as required by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 

standard, a complaint must allege sufficient facts supporting the elements of plaintiff’s legal 

claims against specific defendants, thus giving fair notice to the defendants. Jones v. Community 

Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The complaint must state in specific 

terms how each defendant allegedly violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo, supra, 423 

U.S. at 371. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with these requirements, his complaint must 

be dismissed. 

However, plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is 

informed that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and must therefore be 

complete in itself without reference to the original complaint. See Local Rule 220; Loux v. Rhay, 

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). An amended complaint must clearly identify each claim and the 

Case 2:15-cv-02579-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 5 of 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 

6

challenged conduct of each defendant. 

IV. Conclusion 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed in this action on March 15, 2016, ECF No. 7, 

are vacated. 

 2. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, is granted. 

 3. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith. 

 4. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed. 

 5. Plaintiff shall, within thirty days after service of this order, file an amended complaint 

that complies with the requirements set forth herein, as well as the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Local Rules. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this 

case and be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

6. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in 

the dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

DATED: May 3, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02579-JAM-AC Document 10 Filed 05/03/16 Page 6 of 6