Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00289-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Herrera
Plaintiff
Rouch
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERTO HERRERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROUCH, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 11)

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN

THIRTY (30) DAYS

SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Roberto Herrera, a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.

1.) On March 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s Complaint was screened and dismissed, with leave to

amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 11) is now before the Court for screening.

///

1

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 1 of 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

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, 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

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). 

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).

III. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff names P. Rouch, a health care staff member at Corcoran State Prison

(Corcoran), as the sole Defendant and alleges the following:

Plaintiff has suffered a series of fractured bones requiring corrective metal implants

and resulting in chronic pain for more than a decade. On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff saw

Defendant Rouch regarding his condition. Plaintiff explained that his medication was not

effective. Rouch replied that there was nothing she could do. Plaintiff then requested a

2

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 2 of 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

chrono for thermal underwear bottoms because the pain worsened in cold temperatures.

Rouch again explained there was nothing she could do. (Compl. at 3.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Section 1983

To state a claim under Section 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 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 accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. 

Id. at 1949-50.

B. Inadequate Medical Care

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an

inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439

F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). The

3

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 3 of 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

two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘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,’” and (2) “the defendant's

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting

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

WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations

omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a

prisoner's pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Jett, 439

F.3d at 1096 (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). In order to state a claim for a violation

of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support a claim that the

named defendants “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [Plaintiff's] health . .

. .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that

a prisoner's civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)

(citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in

diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical

mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a

constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106;

see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin, 974

F.2d at 1050. Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).

4

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 4 of 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

Also, “a difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical

authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon,

662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal citation omitted). To prevail, Plaintiff “must

show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under

the circumstances . . . and . . . that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an

excessive risk to plaintiff's health.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)

(internal citations omitted). A prisoner's mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment

does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242

(9th Cir.1989).

1. Serious Medical Need

Plaintiff suffered several fractures in his leg, received metal implants, and has

experienced more than ten years of chronic pain, uncontrolled by medication, as a result. 

Plaintiff adequately alleges a serious medical need and thus satisfies the first element of

his Eighth Amendment medical treatment claim. See Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d

540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994) (“serious” medical conditions are those a reasonable doctor would

think worthy of comment, those which significantly affect the prisoner's daily activities, and

those which are chronic and accompanied by substantial pain).

2. Deliberate Indifference

Plaintiff alleges that he has dealt with pain for years, has struggled with health care

officials regarding appropriate treatment, and current medication is not effective. He raised

the issue of inadequate medication with Rouch and she explained that there was nothing

she could do. Plaintiff then requested, but was denied, thermal underwear bottoms to

relieve chronic pain exacerbated by cold weather. Rouch again explained that there was

5

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 5 of 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

nothing she could do.

The allegations set forth in the original complaint are repeated nearly verbatim in the

First Amended Complaint. The Court’s original screening order determined that these

factual allegations were not sufficient to state a cognizable claim. Since Plaintiff’s

amended complaint offers no new facts, it necessarily fails to correct the pleading

deficiencies previously identified by the Court.

The pleading does not provide sufficient factual allegations to establish deliberate

indifference. “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391

F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be

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

serious harm exists,’ but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was

not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the

risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir.

2002)).

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to the

defendant's conduct that proximately caused a violation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844

F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988). Plaintiff’s factual allegations remain far too vague. As the

Court previously identified, the allegations do not explain whether Rouch could not or

would not fulfill the request and, if she would not, what reasons, if any, were given by

Rouch.

The Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to amend. To state a

cognizable claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendant Rouch had the authority to

6

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 6 of 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

authorize long underwear and acted with deliberate indifference to deny it to Plaintiff

knowing that doing so would create a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff must

adequately describe the circumstances surrounding the events at issue and demonstrate

that the Defendant knew of and disregarded Plaintiff’s serious medical need. Should

Plaintiff choose to amend and realleges the same facts without more circumstantial detail,

then the Court will recommend that his claim be dismissed with prejudice.

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim for relief under section 1983. 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-

49. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible

on its face.’” Id. at 1949 (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 longer

7

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 7 of 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

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 “Second 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 First Amended Complaint, filed May 30, 2013;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended 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 recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim and failure to comply with a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 1:13-cv-00289-LJO-MJS Document 12 Filed 06/03/13 Page 8 of 8