Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00391/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00391-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Eric Paris
Plaintiff
Ikwinder Singh
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

PAUL ERIC PARIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

IKWINDER SINGH,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-0391-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF NO. 1)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN 

THIRTY (30) DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. His complaint is before 

the Court for screening.

I. 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, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 7 Filed 07/02/14 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

2

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).

II. PLEADING STANDARD

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

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

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 7 Filed 07/02/14 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

3

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff complains of acts that occurred during his incarceration at Valley State 

Prison (“VSP”). Plaintiff names Ikwinder Singh as Defendant. 

Plaintiff’s allegations can be summarized essentially as follows:

In February 2013, Plaintiff developed pain and burning in his lower abdomen and 

had pain on urination. Plaintiff filled out a California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Form 7362 regarding these medical complaints and saw an 

R.N. Defendant became Plaintiff’s primary care physician and was aware of Plaintiff’s 

medical complaints. 

Plaintiff continued to file “numerous” 7362 forms regarding these symptoms until 

February 2014. During this period, Plaintiff suffered “significant and continuous” pain and 

burning that interrupted his “daily and nightly function.” At some point, Plaintiff saw a 

specialist; however, Defendant did not follow the specialist’s recommendations or 

otherwise cure, stabilize, or effectively treat Plaintiff’s medical problems. Defendant 

eventually arranged for Plaintiff to have bladder surgery as recommended by the 

specialist. 

Defendant caused a year long delay in Plaintiff’s treatment and unnecessary pain 

and suffering. As a result of the delayed treatment, Plaintiff is at risk for further “medical 

issues.”

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conduct violated his rights under the Eighth 

Amendment of the United States Constitution and that Defendant failed to comply with 

California Government Code § 845.6. Plaintiff seeks general and punitive damages, and 

“any other relief Plaintiff is entitled to.”

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 7 Filed 07/02/14 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

4

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Medical Indifference

A claim of medical indifference requires (1) a serious medical need, and (2) a 

deliberately indifferent response by defendant. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th

Cir. 2006). The deliberate indifference standard is met 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. Id. Mere indifference, negligence, or medical malpractice is not 

sufficient to support the claim. Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 

1980) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 87, 105-06 (1976)).

Plaintiff’s allegation that he suffered “significant” pain and burning that interfered 

with his daily activities is sufficient to show a serious medical need. Jett, 439 F.3d at 

1096 (a “serious medical need” may be shown by demonstrating that “failure to treat a 

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain’”); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992)

(“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.”). 

However, the facts of the complaint do not allege a deliberately indifferent 

response by Defendant. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant failed to respond or 

responded in a medically unacceptable manner. Rather, he asserts that Defendant 

delayed taking action recommended by another and the pain persisted. See Toguchi v. 

Chung, 391 f.3d 1051, 1058-60 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff does not explain the nature and 

circumstances surrounding the delay in Plaintiff’s surgery, what reason Defendant gave 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 7 Filed 07/02/14 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

5

for the delay, the basis for Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant was aware of the need for 

surgery, the basis for his belief Defendant, rather than some authority beyond his 

control, was responsible for the delay, and why he feels the delay was intentional or 

deliberately indifferent. Cf. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(doctor’s awareness of need for treatment followed by his unnecessary delay in 

implementing the prescribed treatment sufficient to plead deliberate indifference). 

If Plaintiff chooses to amend he must allege facts demonstrating that Defendant 

knowingly denied, delayed, or interfered with treatment of his serious medical needs, or 

knowingly provided medically unacceptable care, that caused harm to Plaintiff.

B. California Government Code § 845.6

California Government Code § 845.6 provides in part:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately caused 

by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a prisoner in 

his custody; but . . . a public employee, and the public entity where the employee 

is acting within the scope of his employment, is liable if the employee knows or 

has reason to know that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and he 

fails to take reasonable action to summon such medical care.

In order to state a claim under § 845.6 a prisoner must establish three elements: 

(1) the public employee knew or had reason to know of the need, (2) for immediate 

medical care, and (3) failed to reasonably summon such care. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1099. 

“Liability under section 845.6 is limited to serious and obvious medical conditions 

requiring immediate care.” Id. (citing Watson v. State, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 262, 265 (Ct. App. 

1993)). 

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim for relief based on § 845.6. The 

allegation that Defendant failed to promptly refer Plaintiff for surgery goes to the 

reasonableness of the care Defendant provided and does not constitute a failure to 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 7 Filed 07/02/14 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

6

“summon” medical care for purposes of liability under § 845.6. See Castaneda v. Dep’t 

of Corr. & Rehab., 151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648, 664 (Ct. App. 2013) (“[F]ailure of these two 

public employees to provide further treatment, or to ensure further diagnosis or 

treatment, or to monitor Castaneda or follow up on his progress, are all facts which go to 

the reasonableness of the medical care provided, but do not constitute a failure to 

summon medical care.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s § 845.6 claim fails 

as a matter of law.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim for relief. The Court will grant Plaintiff 

an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 

(9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts 

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff 

must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” 

Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must also demonstrate 

that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his rights. Jones 

v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it 

is not for the purposes of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully read this Screening Order and focus his efforts on 

curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, 

an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no 

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 7 Filed 07/02/14 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

7

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 

Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 

under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff's amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). 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).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights complaint form 

and (2) a copy of his Complaint, filed March 20, 2014;

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted;

3. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

the Court will dismissed this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and failure 

to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00391-MJS Document 7 Filed 07/02/14 Page 7 of 7