Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06757/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06757-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. Foss
Defendant
Michael Rodriguez
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. FOSS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06757-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), has filed a pro se action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that SVSP officials have violated his constitutional rights. 

His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the 

reasons set forth below, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff has been 

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

Case 4:19-cv-06757-HSG Document 7 Filed 11/27/19 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a 

plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . 

. . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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).

B. Complaint

The complaint names as defendants Senior Psychologist Supervisor Gregg, Psychologist 

and Chief of Mental Health Yanez, Senior Psychologist Specialist Price, Chief Medical Executive 

Kumar, Chief Physician and Surgeon Bright, and Warden Foss. The complaint alleges that 

defendants have failed and refused to treat his gender dysphoria, despite plaintiff’s repeated 

requests. The complaint also alleges that defendants have failed to maintain the confidentiality of 

plaintiff’s confidential information which he disclosed pursuant to evaluations regarding his 

gender dysphoria, and allowed the confidential information to be used to disparage and ridicule 

him, and to have plaintiff physically harmed. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-5. The complaint alleges that these 

actions have violated plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment, First Amendment, and 

Fourteenth Amendment. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. 

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff has failed to link 

any of the defendants to the constitutional violation. It is unclear how defendants were involved in 

the alleged constitutional violations. Section 1983 liability may be imposed on an individual 

defendant only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a 

federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). In filing an 

Case 4:19-cv-06757-HSG Document 7 Filed 11/27/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amended complaint, plaintiff should name, for each instance of a constitutional violation, each 

person who violated his constitutional right(s), describe what each person did to violate his 

right(s), and state where and the violation occurred. He must be careful to allege facts showing 

the basis for liability for each individual defendant. He should not refer to them as a group (e.g. 

“the defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each of 

them to his claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of 

his constitutional rights. 

To assist plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the Court reviews some relevant 

legal principles.

Gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition, and the failure to provide medically 

necessary treatment for gender dysphoria violates the Eighth Amendment. Edmo v. Corizon, 935 

F.3d 757, 785 (9th Cir. 2019). It is unclear, however, how the failure to treat plaintiff’s gender 

dysphoria and the disclosure of an inmate’s confidential information state a claim under the First 

Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. 

With respect to plaintiff’s allegations against Warden Foss, Chief Medical Executive 

Kumar, and Chief Physician and Surgeon Bright, the Court reminds plaintiff that Section 1983 

liability may be imposed on an individual defendant only if the plaintiff can show that the 

defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. There is no 

respondent superior liability, or supervisory liability, under Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the 

theory that one is liable simply because he supervises a person who has violated a plaintiff’s 

rights. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). When a named defendant holds a 

supervisory position, the causal link between the supervisory defendant and the claimed 

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th 

Cir. 1979). To state a claim for relief under Section 1983 against a supervisor defendant, plaintiff 

must allege some facts that would support a claim that (1) the supervisor defendant proximately 

caused the deprivation of rights of which plaintiff complains, see Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 

F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981); (2) the supervisor defendant failed to properly train or supervise 

personnel resulting in the alleged deprivation, Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 

Case 4:19-cv-06757-HSG Document 7 Filed 11/27/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

723 F.2d 675, 680 (9th Cir. 1984); (3) the alleged deprivation resulted from custom or policy for 

which the supervisor defendant was responsible, see id.; or (4) the supervisor defendant knew of 

the alleged misconduct and failed to act to prevent future misconduct, Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. 

Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient to state a claim. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to address the 

deficiencies identified above. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, plaintiff 

shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order, Case No. C 19-06757 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED

COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, plaintiff must answer all the

questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended 

complaint, Plaintiff should make it as concise as possible. The amended complaint must be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the previous complaints. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference.

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time provided will result 

in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff. The Clerk shall include two copies of 

the court’s complaint with a copy of this order to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/27/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-06757-HSG Document 7 Filed 11/27/19 Page 4 of 4