Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00698-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Calistro
Defendant
Alton King
Plaintiff

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALTON KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALISTRO,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00698-SAB (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

EITHER FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS 

TO PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE 

CLAIMS

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

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

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, 

filed May 7, 2015. (ECF No. 1.)

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 “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B).

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 10
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

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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

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

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

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 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 Service, 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 is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”) and is incarcerated at Valley State Prison. On or about July 23, 2013, Plaintiff was in 

the pill line to receive his medication and Licensed Vocational Nurse (“LVN”) Calistro was 

dispensing medications to inmates. (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) LVN Calistro noticed that 

Plaintiff‟s medication had been increased from 15 mg to 30 mg and asked Plaintiff how he had 

managed to get his Morphine dosage increased. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.) Plaintiff informed LVN 

Calistro that the doctor had increased his medication due to the severity of his pain. (Id. at ¶ 11.) 

On August 18, 2013, Plaintiff went to receive his medication and LVN Calistro was 

dispensing medication. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff had difficulty swallowing due to a recent 

Tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy, and left neck mass dissection surgery. (Id.) Pursuant to prison 

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 10
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

procedures, LVN Calistro asked Plaintiff to open his mouth to make sure that he had swallowed 

his medication. (Id.) After checking Plaintiff‟s mouth, LVN Calistro indicated that Plaintiff was 

to leave. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13.)

On August 21, 2013, Plaintiff went to receive his medication and discovered that his 

prescription had been changed from a time release pill to a pill that had to be crushed to powder 

and mixed with water. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff was informed that his Morphine had been 

discontinued because LVN Calistro had claimed that she caught him cheeking his medication. 

(Id. at ¶¶ 16, 17.) Cheeking, which is forbidden, occurs where an inmate does not swallow his 

medication, but conceals it in his cheek to sell or use at a later time. (Id. at ¶ 18.) 

After being told of the allegations, Plaintiff went to speak with Correctional Officer 

Spears. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Officer Spears told Plaintiff that LVN Calistro never informed him that 

Plaintiff had been caught cheeking his medication on August 18, 2013. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Plaintiff 

contends that due to LVN Calistro falsely stating that he was caught cheeking his medication, he 

was placed on an ineffective pain medication regimen which caused him to suffer withdrawal 

and constant severe pain. (Id. at ¶¶ 26-29.) 

Prior to LVN Calistro claiming that Plaintiff cheeked his medication, he filed an inmate 

appeal regarding inadequate medical care following his neck surgery.1 (Id. at ¶ 30.) Plaintiff 

appeared in the pill line on an unidentified date and LVN Calistro asked him why he filed an 

inmate appeal. (Id. at 31.) LVN Calistro alleged told Plaintiff that she was “tired of these scum 

bag inmates always complaining about inadequate medical care, when most of them never had 

any medical insurance or treatment when they were free.” (Id. at ¶ 32.) LVN Calistro informed 

Plaintiff that she did not think he needed Morphine. (Id. at ¶ 33.) 

Plaintiff brings this action against LVN Calistro for deliberate indifference, retaliation, 

and violation of due process. (Id. at ¶¶ 39-44.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive 

and declaratory relief. (Id. at pp. 8-9.2) 

 

1

Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit to his complaint a grievance filed August 8, 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 23-34.) 

2 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 10
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

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff states a claim for retaliation, but fails to state any 

other cognizable claims. 

III.

DISCUSSION

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of 

substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec‟y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-394 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal 

connection, between each defendant‟s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal rights. 

Lemire v. California Dep‟t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. 

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). This requires Plaintiff to allege sufficient facts to 

link the named defendants to some act or failure to act that violated his constitutional rights. 

Iqbal at 1949

A. Retaliation

Plaintiff alleges that LVN Calistro falsely reported that he cheeked his medication 

because he filed an inmate appeal grieving the inadequate care he received after having surgery. 

A plaintiff may state a claim for a violation of his First Amendment rights due to retaliation 

under section 1983. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). A viable claim of 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment consists of five elements: “(1) An assertion that a 

state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner‟s 

protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate‟s exercise of his First Amendment 

rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 

(9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 4 of 10
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

At the pleading stage, Plaintiff‟s allegations are sufficient to state a claim against LVN 

Calistro for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

B. Deliberate Indifference

Plaintiff contends that LVN Calistro was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by 

falsely claiming that he cheeked his medication to have his prescription medication changed. 

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). To state a claim, 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. 

Plaintiff contends that LVN Calistro was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs 

because she reported that he cheeked his medication which resulted in a change in his medication 

regime to a different medication that was administered by being dissolved in water. However, 

even if LVN Calistro falsely reported that Plaintiff cheeked his medication, it is not plausible that 

LVN Calistro, given her position, had the ability to determine the medication that Plaintiff was 

prescribed. The allegations in the complaint demonstrate that Plaintiff continued to receive 

medication, although not the medication that he preferred. Even if Plaintiff‟s medication was 

changed due to LVN Calistro‟s allegations, the change in medication is a difference of opinion 

between Plaintiff and prison medical authorities as to proper treatment which does not give rise 

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 5 of 10
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

to a claim. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981); Mayfield v. Craven, 433 

F.2d 873, 874 (9th Cir. 1970). Plaintiff fails to state a plausible deliberate indifference claim 

against LVN Calistro due to her reporting that he cheeked his medication.

Plaintiff also contends that due to the change in his medication he was forced to endure 

painful withdrawals without medical treatment and ongoing, constant pain. However, Plaintiff‟s 

complaint is devoid of any allegations that he reported these symptoms to any medical personnel 

who failed to appropriately respond. To state a claim, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to 

show that the named defendant was aware of a serious medical need and failed to adequately 

respond. Simmons v. Navajo County, Arizona, 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff 

fails to state a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 

C. Due Process

Plaintiff alleges that his due process rights were violated when LVN Calistro falsely 

reported that he cheeked his medication. The touchstone of due process is protection of the 

individual against arbitrary government action, whether the fault lies in a denial of fundamental 

procedural fairness or in the exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service 

of a legitimate governmental objective. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-46, 

(1998) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

1. Procedural Due Process

The Due Process Clause protects against the deprivation of liberty without due process of 

law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). In order to state a cause of action for a 

deprivation of due process, a plaintiff must first identify a liberty interest for which the 

protection is sought. Id. A state may “create liberty interests which are protected by the Due 

Process Clause.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). A prisoner has a liberty 

interest protected by the Due Process Clause only where the restraint “imposes atypical and 

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Keenan v. 

Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484). 

Plaintiff points to the portions of the CDCR medical protocol that addresses the 

procedure to follow when administering medication. (ECF No. 1 at 61-63.) To the extent that 

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 6 of 10
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

Plaintiff contends that LVN Calistro‟s actions failed to comport with the CDCR medical 

protocols and practices, the CDCR medical procedures do not create liberty interests that are 

protected by the Due Process clause. . See Roberts v. Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 

1986) (“The state‟s use of guidelines to „structure the exercise‟ of the decisionmaker‟s discretion 

does not necessarily create a protected interest.”) The regulations provide that where an inmate 

has a history of cheeking medication “the prescriber may order medications in tablet or capsule 

form to be crushed or emptied into water or juice. . . .” (ECF No. 1 at 66 (emphasis added).) 

The regulations provide that the medical provider has discretion in deciding how medications 

may be provided to the inmate and as such cannot create a liberty interest. Roberts, 783 F.2d at

871 (use of the word may considered in the context of the regulation indicates “that the 

regulation does not create a „right or justifiable expectation‟ that can be denied only upon the 

application of defined and objective criteria.”) Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in 

receiving a certain type of medication or being administered his medication in a specific manner. 

2. Substantive Due Process

Where a particular amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional 

protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more 

generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing a plaintiff‟s 

claims.” Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations, internal quotations, and 

brackets omitted) overruled on other grounds by Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. V. Swift –

Eckrick, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006); Lewis, 523 U.S. at 842. In this case, the Eighth Amendment 

“provides [the] explicit textual source of constitutional protection . . . .” Patel, 103 F.3d at 874. 

Therefore, the Eighth Amendment rather than the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment governs Plaintiff‟s claims in this action. 

D. Equitable Relief

Plaintiff seeks an evaluation regarding appropriate pain medication, evaluation by a nonCDCR pain specialist, and expungement of any records relating to him cheeking his medication. 

Any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides 

in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall 

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 7 of 10
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

8

extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular 

plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court 

finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 

of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

While an order requiring expungement of any records regarding Plaintiff cheeking his 

medication would be narrowly tailored to correct the alleged retaliation at issue here, Plaintiff‟s 

request for evaluation by a non-CDCR specialist and pain control medication would extend 

further than necessary to correct the alleged violation here. Therefore, Plaintiff‟s requests 

pertaining to evaluation by a non-CDCR pain specialist, medication and medical care are not 

cognizable in this action and these claims are dismissed. 

Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that LVN Calistro failed to comply with procedure and 

protocol and was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. “A declaratory judgment, like 

other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of judicial discretion, 

exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village, 333 U.S. 426, 

431 (1948). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful purpose in 

clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford relief 

from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” United States v. Washington, 759 

F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). In the event that this action reaches trial and the jury returns a 

verdict in favor of Plaintiff, that verdict will be a finding that Plaintiff‟s constitutional rights 

were violated. Accordingly, a declaration that Plaintiff‟s rights were violated is unnecessary.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff‟s complaint states a cognizable claim against LVN Calistro for retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment, but does not state any other claims for relief under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing 

the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 

(9th Cir. 1987).

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 8 of 10
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

9

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding 

only against LVN Calistro, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing. The claims found to be 

not cognizable will then be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will then be provided 

with a summons and a USM-285 form for completion and return. Upon receipt of the forms, the 

Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on LVN Calistro.

If Plaintiff elects to amend, his 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,129 S. Ct. at 1948-49; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 

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). The mere 

possibility of misconduct is insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Further, 

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). 

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. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

either:

a. File an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended complaint 

and is willing to proceed only against LVN Calistro for retaliation in violation of 

the First Amendment; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 9 of 10
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

10

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00698-SAB Document 7 Filed 07/08/15 Page 10 of 10