Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00459/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00459-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvarnez
Defendant
Darryl Eugene Taylor
Plaintiff
James A. Yates
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL EUGENE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00459-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 19)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Screening Order

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Darryl Eugene Taylor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 23, 2007. Plaintiff filed a first

amended complaint as a matter of right on July 10, 2008, and on May 21, 2009, the Court found that

Plaintiff’s amended complaint stated cognizable claims against some but not all of the defendants. 

The Court dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to amend. Pending before the Court is

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed June 19, 2009. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After the issuance of the first screening

order, there was a “significant change” in the pleading standard to which Plaintiff’s complaint is

held. Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009). Due to this change and

because the Court previously informed Plaintiff that some of his claims were cognizable, the Court 

///

1

Case 1:07-cv-00459-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 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

will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to amend. Moss, 572 F.3d at 972; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

II. 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 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 bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at

1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct, Iqbal at 1950, and while factual allegations are

accepted as true, legal conclusion are not, id. at 1949.

III. Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment Claims 

Plaintiff, who was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) in Coalinga during the

relevant events, brings this action against Chief Medical Officer Alvarnez, dentist Dr. A. Verdugo,

and Does 1 through 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to provide him with proper dental care, and

he seeks damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. 

///

///

2

Case 1:07-cv-00459-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 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

A. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations

On June 24, 2003, Plaintiff was diagnosed with advanced chronic periodontitis by Dr. J. A.

Smith at the California Correctional Institution (CCI). Dr. Smith extracted seven of Plaintiff’s teeth

on July 8, 2003, and Plaintiff was provided with dental care at CCI until March 26, 2006. Plaintiff

was thereafter transferred to PVSP, and made numerous requests for dental treatment. On August

13, 2006, Plaintiff submitted an inmate appeal toDefendant Alvarnez regarding his dental condition. 

(Ex. 5.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alvarnez failed to ensure Plaintiff received dental care.

On October 11, 2006, Plaintiff was examined by Defendant Verdugo, who noted that

Plaintiff’s gums were a strange color and pus was coming out of areas of Plaintiff’s mouth. (Ex. 3.) 

Plaintiff alleges that despite complaining of pain, he received no treatment from Defendant Verdugo.

On July 9, 2007, Plaintiff was examined by Defendant Doe 1, who noted that Plaintiff was

experiencing pain due to his gum condition and then referred Plaintiff back to Defendant Verdugo

even though Plaintiff complained of pain, swelling, and difficulty eating. (Ex. 4.) Present at that

time were Defendants Does 2 and 3.

In earlyAugust 2007, Plaintiff tried to enterthe medical office to complain about pain, blood,

and pus in his mouth. Plaintiff was stopped and questioned by Defendants Does 4-6, who told

Plaintiff that the medical office was closed and ordered him to return to his cell. Plaintiff alleges the

office was not closed.

Plaintiff alleges that while at PVSP, he did not receive dental care and he continues to suffer

from dental problems at his current institution.

B. Defendant Alvarnez

Defendant Alvarnez is, or was at the relevant time, the Chief Medical Officer at PVSP. 

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must show that Defendant Alvarnez personally participated in the

deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no

respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his own misconduct. Iqbal at

1948-49. A supervisor may be held liable for the constitutional violations of his subordinates only

if he “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); also Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554,

3

Case 1:07-cv-00459-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/13/10 Page 3 of 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

570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182

(9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).

Although Plaintiff alleges that he submitted an inmate appeal to Defendant Alvarnez

regarding his dental problems but Defendant failed to ensure he was treated, the exhibit cited to by

Plaintiff consists only of the appeal form filled out at the initiation stage and a letter from the

Director’s Level of review informing Plaintiff that his appeal had been sent to the appeals

coordinator at CSP-Corcoran for review. The appeal bears the date August 13, 2006, and the letter

bears the date October 21, 2008, along with an appeal log number indicating the letter relates to an

appeal initiated at CSP-Corcoran in 2008 rather than an appeal initiated at PVSP in 2006. 

In any event, the exhibit does not support a claim that Defendant Alvarnez knowingly

disregarded an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s serious health issues. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). It is unclear whether Defendant Alvarnez ever saw the appeal, and

absent some personal involvement in denying or disregarding Plaintiff’s serious dental care needs,

Defendant may not be held liable under section 1983. Iqbal at 1948-49. The fact that Defendant had

the ultimate supervisory role over medical and dental care at PVSP, alone, cannot support a claim

under section 1983 because Defendant cannot be held liable for the wrongdoing of subordinates

based merely on his position of authority. Id. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim

against Defendant Alvarnez. 

C. Defendant Verdugo

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Verdugo arises from his failure to provide dental

treatment despite Plaintiff’s complaints. To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation

of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction

of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical

care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) “the prison official

deprived the prisoner of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and (2) “the prison

official ‘acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). 

4

Case 1:07-cv-00459-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/13/10 Page 4 of 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

A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows

of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. 825 at 834. 

Deliberate indifference may be manifested “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally

interfere with medical treatment,” or in the manner “in which prison physicians provide medical

care.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Where a prisoner is alleging

a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the

prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. McGuckin, 974 F.2d

at 1060 (citing Shapely v.Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)).

Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Verdugo failed to provide him with any treatment

despite noting that Plaintiff’s gums were discolored, he had pus in his mouth, and he was

complaining of pain, Plaintiff’s exhibit does not support a claim that Defendant Verdugo acted with

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious dental needs. (Ex. 3.) Plaintiff’s medical record

contains a fairly detailed note. (Id.) Defendant documented that Plaintiff was complaining of loose

teeth, pus, and a strange color to his gums. (Id.) Defendant found the color of Plaintiff’s gums to

be normal, very slight mobility, and several localized “perio” defects. (Id.) Defendant wrote that

Plaintiff needed to be seen by a periodontist, that Plaintiff needed “to return for fmx (full mouth xrays) - exam - referral,” and that Plaintiff was scheduled for an exam. (Id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Verdugo. Although

Plaintiff alleges that he received no treatment from Defendant, Plaintiff’s exhibit demonstrates that

he was examined and a course of treatment was prescribed. Plaintiff’s disagreement with that course

of treatment does not support a claim under section 1983. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344

(9th Cir. 1981). There is simply no factual support for Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant Verdugo

acted with deliberate indifference. Iqbal at 1949-50.

D. Defendants Does 1-3

Defendants Does 1 through 3 conducted and/or were present for Plaintiff’s appointment on

July 9, 2007. Plaintiff complains that they did nothing but refer him back to Defendant Verdugo. 

Plaintiff’s exhibit, however, shows that Plaintiff was seen on July 9, 2007, for a dental scaling, which

5

Case 1:07-cv-00459-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/13/10 Page 5 of 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

occurred. It was noted that there was some gum swelling and that Plaintiff was being treated by

Defendant Verdugo. Although the writing is not entirely legible, the note indicates that medication

was prescribed and that Plaintiff was scheduled to see Defendant Verdugo.

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that he was referred back to Defendant Verdugo despite

complaining of pain, swelling, and difficulty eating is insufficient to support a claim for violation

of the Eighth Amendment, and Plaintiff’s exhibit does not support the claim that Does 1-3 acted with

deliberate indifference to his serious dental care needs. Rather, the exhibit demonstrates that

Plaintiff was seen for a scaling, which occurred, and was then referred back to Defendant Verdugo,

who was his treating dentist. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Does 1-3.

E. Defendants Does 4-6

With respect to Does 4-6, Plaintiff’s allegations simply are not sufficient to support a facially

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal at 1949-50. While it is alleged that Defendants prevented him from

accessing the medical clinic, there is not sufficient support for a claim that they knowingly

disregarded a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff’s health, Farmer, 511 U.S. 825 at 837, or that

Plaintiff suffered any further harm as a result of being turned away from that clinic at the time,

McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.

F. Claims for Equitable Relief

In addition to damages, Plaintiff seeks a declaration and an injunction mandating dental

treatment. Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison-Corcoran. Because Plaintiff is no

longer at PVSP, his requests for equitable relief are moot. S.E.C. v. Gemstar-TV Guide Int’l, Inc.,

367 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2004); also Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley

v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). 

In the event Plaintiff is able to amend to state a claim, he may seek damages from Defendants in their

individual capacities, but is barred from seeking equitable relief. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint does not state any cognizable claims for relief under

section 1983 for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff shall be granted one final opportunity

to amend. Moss at 972; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit

6

Case 1:07-cv-00459-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/13/10 Page 6 of 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

by adding new, unrelated claims in his third amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s third 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 rights, Iqbal at

1948-49. There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her

own misconduct. Iqbal 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 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 superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Therefore, “[a]ll 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 second amended complaint, filed June 19, 2009, is dismissed for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;

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

third amended complaint; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a third 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: July 13, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:07-cv-00459-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 07/13/10 Page 7 of 7