Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00584/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00584-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Akanno
Defendant
A. Manasrah
Defendant
OGun Omolade
Defendant
A. Rangel
Defendant
William Ratcliff
Plaintiff
M. Spaeth
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff William Ratcliff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 

the United States Magistrate Judge on May 5, 2016. Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on April 26, 2016.

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 or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

WILLIAM RATCLIFF,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. AKANNO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00584-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 9
2

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 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 demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 

screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow 

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely 

consistent with‟ a defendant‟s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names M. Spaeth (Chief Physician and Surgeon), Ogun Omolade (medical examiner 

for the health care department), A. Rangel (Registered Nurse), A. Manasrah (Primary Care Physician), 

and J. Akanno (Medical Doctor), as Defendants. Plaintiff contends that each Defendant was 

deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

In April 2010, Plaintiff suffered from severe ulnar neuropathy at the wrist, soft tissue 

inflammation, tendon swelling with inflammation, unusual weakness and numbness. Plaintiff was 

under treatment by prison health staff for this serious medical condition, and Plaintiff was informed by 

Physician Dennis G. Patterson that he would need surgery. Plaintiff was issued a lower bunk chrono 

by Dennis G. Patterson.

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 9
3

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

On December 8, 2012, while housed at Calipatria State Prison, Plaintiff sustained trauma 

during an assault and was air lifted to Desert Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff suffered multiple 

contusions and fractures to his lower back and left shoulder. 

On November 23, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP). While 

housed at KVSP, Defendant Ogun Omolade took Plaintiff‟s lower bunk chrono without Plaintiff‟s 

knowledge and without contacting Plaintiff to explain why the chrono was no longer necessary.

On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal complaining about his injuries 

and lower bunk chrono. The appeal was answered at the Director‟s Level on July 9, 2015, Log # 

KVSP HC 14035850. The response stated that after review, no intervention at the Director‟s Level 

was necessary as Plaintiff‟s medical condition was evaluated and he was receiving the treatment 

deemed medically necessary. 

On May 22, 2015, while trying to climb into the upper bunk, Plaintiff slipped and fell off the 

desk stool and sustained an injury to the back of his head requiring stitches. Plaintiff re-injured his 

lower back and upper left shoulder. On this same date, Plaintiff completed a health care service 

request form complaining about the injury to Plaintiff‟s shoulder and back. Plaintiff was experiencing 

excruciating an agonizing pain.

On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff went to the drop-in clinic and explained to the Medical Technician 

Assistant (MTA) A. Rangel that Plaintiff re-injured his lower back and shoulder and would like to see 

a doctor. Plaintiff knew his injuries were serious because he could barely walk. Plaintiff explained 

that there was no way he could climb or reach the upper bunk without some sort of help. Plaintiff 

demanded that his lower bunk chrono be reinstated even if it was temporally 

Defendant Rangel stated that these injuries normally go away after several months, and 

suggested that Plaintiff exercise and try not to bend too much. Rather than arranging a visit to see the 

doctor, Defendant Rangel declined to do anything more than attempt to improve Plaintiff‟s condition. 

On May 28, 2015, Plaintiff‟s condition had worsened. Plaintiff could not raise himself up from 

his bunk to receive his breakfast meal. Plaintiff had to have assistance from his cellmate, inmate 

Parks, who would assist Plaintiff whenever he could not raise himself up to receive his breakfast meal, 

or when Plaintiff started having trouble getting to and from the bunk. After Plaintiff could not walk 

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 9
4

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

without difficulty, he saw the medical technician that morning who was handing out the morning 

medications. Plaintiff explained that he was having substantial back pain, stiffness, numbness, and he 

felt something puckering him in his lower back. 

The MTA told Plaintiff to fill out a health care service request form and write emergency on 

the top. Plaintiff did so, and the next day he was seen by A. Manasrah (Primary Care Provider). 

Plaintiff explained to Manasrah that in December of 2012, he was assaulted and sustained trauma, and 

had to be air lifted to Desert Regional Medical Center where Plaintiff suffered multiple contusions and 

fractures to his spine and upper left shoulder. 

Plaintiff further explained that he suffered from severe ulnar neuropathy at the wrist and that in 

May of 2015, Plaintiff re-injured his back and shoulder when he slipped and fell off the desk stool. 

Plaintiff asked Manasrah for pain medication and to temporarily reinstate Plaintiff‟s lower bunk 

chrono because it was difficult getting to and from the upper bunk. Manasrah informed Plaintiff that 

an x-ray was necessary before he would be prescribed pain medication. 

Plaintiff continued to report his condition although he knew prison officials would not help

him. 

After several weeks passed, MTA Rangel referred Plaintiff to Defendant J. Akanno. 

On July 6, 2015, Plaintiff explained to Defendant Akanno about his condition and injuries and 

requested that the lower bunk chrono be reinstated. Doctor Akanno suggested that Plaintiff continue 

with the exercise treatment which he knew was ineffective or entailed substantial risk of serious harm 

to Plaintiff. 

On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff had x-rays of his lower back and upper left shoulder. 

On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed another administrative appeal form, KVSP HC 1503656, 

complaining that he had not received proper medication and treatment. The appeal was assigned to 

Defendant Chief Physician Sparth for second level review. Dr. Sparth agreed with the first level 

response, without any medical justification. Dr. Sparth knew about Plaintiff‟s problems but 

incorrectly did not believe that it posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. Dr. Sparth did 

not make a good faith effort to investigate or fix the problem. Plaintiff‟s pain radiates from his back 

into his upper left shoulder and legs. 

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 9
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

On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff received the results of his x-rays. The results stated that 

Plaintiff‟s lower back and shoulder were fractured. The results also indicated that arthritis has set into 

Plaintiff‟s lower back and shoulder. 

Although the test results mentioned Plaintiff‟s injuries were serious, Doctor J. Akanno was 

unconcerned about the danger because he continued to allow Plaintiff to be on the upper bunk, 

knowing Plaintiff had a rupturing back and shoulder fracture. 

On September 18, 2015, Doctor Akanno prescribed Naproxen and Oxcarbazepine.

On October 5, 2015, Plaintiff explained that the medication was not working. Doctor Akanno 

began to get upset with Plaintiff because Plaintiff continued to put forth health care request slips 

complaining about his condition. Had Doctor Akanno reviewed Plaintiff‟s medical records, he would 

have learned that Plaintiff sustained multiple contusions and fractures to transverse process lumber 

spine and sever ulnar neuropathy at the wrist. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 

an inmate‟s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled 

in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff “must 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) that 

“the defendant‟s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 

to a prisoner‟s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 5 of 9
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

A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical 

professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference. 

Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d at 987, overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d at 

1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d at 1122-23 (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 

F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, Plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors 

chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course 

in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 

F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1. Defendant M. Spaeth

Plaintiff contends that Defendant M. Spaeth reviewed his inmate appeal, KVSP HC 1503656 

regarding the lack of proper medication and treatment. Plaintiff contends he denied the grievance 

without medical justification. The mere fact that an individual denied an inmate grievance, alone 

without further factual allegations to support a finding of deliberate indifference does not give to a 

constitutional violation. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant M. 

Spaeth. 

2. Defendant Ogun Omolade

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Ogun Omolade terminated his chrono for lower bunk bed 

placement without Plaintiff‟s knowledge. The mere fact that Defendant Omolade terminated 

Plaintiff‟s chrono for a lower bunk, does not alone, demonstrate that Omolade was deliberately 

indifferent to Plaintiff‟s safety. There are no facts that Omolade actually knew of and disregarded an 

excessive risk to Plaintiff‟s safety, and the mere fact that a certain individual may have been negligent 

does not give rise to a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to 

state a cognizable claim for relief against Defendant Ogun Omolade. 

3. Defendant A. Rangel

Plaintiff contends that A. Rangel failed to properly treat his condition by recommending that 

Plaintiff exercise and try not to bend too much. Plaintiff‟s factual allegations fail to give rise to a 

claim for deliberate indifferent. The fact that Plaintiff believes he should have received different 

treatment and/or medication does not support a claim for deliberate indifference. Snow v. McDaniel, 

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 6 of 9
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

681 F.3d at 987. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against Defendant A. 

Rangel. 

4. Defendant A. Manasrah

Plaintiff contends that A. Manasrah denied him pain medication and temporary reinstatement 

of his lower bunk chrono because an x-ray was necessary. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate deliberate 

indifference on the part of Defendant Manasrah. Plaintiff has not pled facts to suggest that the denial 

of medication and a lower bunk chrono exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107-108 (“A medical decision not to order [a form of treatment] ... does not 

represent cruel and unusual punishment.”) In fact, Plaintiff allegations support the contrary. Plaintiff 

acknowledges that Manasrah ordered x-rays which were done on August 5, 2015. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Manasrah. 

5. Defendant J. Akanno

Plaintiff‟s allegations that Doctor Akanno denied his pain medication and continued his 

placement on an upper bunk amount to a mere difference in medication opinion which is not 

actionable as an Eighth Amendment violation. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d at 332. Plaintiff‟s 

belief that he should not have continued to be housed on an upper bunk and disagreement with the 

pain medication provided does not demonstrate deliberate indifference. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails 

to state a cognizable claim against Defendant J. Akanno. 

B. Inmate Appeal

“The Fourteenth Amendment‟s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 

life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one 

of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Plaintiff does not a 

have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim 

for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, the existence of an inmate appeals process does not create a 

protected liberty interest upon which Plaintiff may base a claim that he was denied a particular result 

or that the appeals process was deficient. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d at 860; Mann v. Adams, 855 

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 7 of 9
8

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

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. 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 must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “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). 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 supersedes 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 superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All

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 complaint, filed April 26, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

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

amended complaint; and

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 8 of 9
9

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

will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 07/22/16 Page 9 of 9