Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02031/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02031-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Billinger
Plaintiff
Yates
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

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Albert Billinger (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2015, the Court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint, filed on April 6, 2015, is currently before the Court for screening. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

ALBERT BILLINGER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

YATES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-02031-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 24)

FORTY-FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 7
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s 

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 

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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. 

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant 

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California. 

Plaintiff has named Warden Yates, Chief Medical Officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison, Dr. Deap, 

Dr. Duenas, PA Fortune, and Dr. Sing as defendants. 

As Plaintiff’s allegations are scattered throughout the form pleading and attachments, the Court 

summarizes Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair because of gun shots wounds. 

Prior to his transfer to Pleasant Valley State Prison, he was in good health. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendants Warden Yates and the Chief Medical Officer knew of the existence of Valley Fever at 

Pleasant Valley State Prison prior to Plaintiff’s transfer and they delayed in reacting to his serious 

medical need and failed to protect him from harm. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Duenas, Deap, 

Sing and Fortune denied him adequate medical care for a serious medical need by leaving Plaintiff in 

pain for weeks and months at time. Plaintiff complains that he was denied pain medication for up to 

two weeks at time. 

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff alleges that after he was sick for two or three months, Defendant finally gave him a 

blood test. Plaintiff asserts that he was so sick he had to be hospitalized for two years and given 

antibiotics. Plaintiff further alleges that he had bad bed sores, which required over 16 surgeries to 

close. Plaintiff also alleges that when it was determined that he had Valley Fever he had lost a lot of 

blood from sores and was in a lot of pain. It took Defendants a month to get him to an outside hospital 

where he was treated with an antibiotic for at least a year. Plaintiff lost 108 pounds and had over 20 to 

25 surgeries. Plaintiff asserts that he is still on pain medication (morphine) and will be on medications 

for the rest of his life. 

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages

III. Discussion

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). 

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

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). 

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 556–557.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is disjointed and it is difficult to understand. As before Plaintiff’s 

complaint lacks basic facts, including what happened, when it happened and who was involved in his 

placement, treatment and medical care at Pleasant Valley State Prison. If Plaintiff elects to amend his 

complaint, he should clearly and concisely identify the facts and the chronological order in which they 

occurred. 

B. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen 

of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 7
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

Constitution ... shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other 

proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 

362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ 

another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an 

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally 

required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Here, Plaintiff fails to link any individual defendant to a constitutional violation. Instead, 

Plaintiff appears to lump all defendants together in his allegations by referring to defendants as “they.” 

If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must allege what each individual defendant did or did not 

do that resulted in a violation of his rights.

C. Eleventh Amendment 

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring claims against Defendants Yates and the Chief Medical 

Officer in their official capacities for monetary damages, he may not do so. The Eleventh Amendment 

prohibits suits for monetary damages against a State, its agencies, and state officials acting in their 

official capacities. Aholelei v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). 

D. Deliberate Indifference/Cruel and Unusual Punishment

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison 

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 

U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner’s claim does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation 

unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the “minimal civilized measure of life's 

necessities,” and (2) “the prison official ‘acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.’” Toguchi v. 

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 

2002) (citation omitted)). In order to find a prison official liable under the Eighth Amendment for 

denying humane conditions of confinement within a prison, the official must know “that inmates face 

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 7
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

a substantial risk of serious harm and disregard [ ] that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to 

abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).

Here, Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for deliberate 

indifference. Plaintiff’s complaint is filled with conclusory statements and does not demonstrate that 

any individual defendant knew of a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff by his placement at 

Pleasant Valley State Prison and failed to take reasonable measures to abate it. Plaintiff will be given 

leave to cure these deficiencies. 

E. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

“[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, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 

(1976)). The 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.

Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and fails 

to adequately respond. Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019; Toguchi v. Chung, 391 

F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). The prison official must be aware of facts from which he could make 

an inference that “a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he must make the inference. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1979, 128 L.Ed.2d 811(1994).

“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). 

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 7
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

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).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations to support a claim for 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against any individual defendant. As noted above, 

Plaintiff merely lumped all defendants together and provided conclusory statements regarding the 

alleged constitutional violations. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he should specify what 

each individual did or failed to do that resulted in a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

F. Fourteenth Amendment

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. However, the 

nature of this claim is unclear. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he should specify the nature 

of his Fourteenth Amendment claim. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim against any individual defendant. The Court will 

grant Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. 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). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims 

in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local 

Rule 220. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 7
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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

3. Within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

second amended complaint; and

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

action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02031-BAM Document 25 Filed 04/09/15 Page 7 of 7