United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDC; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-2621 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Moody Woodrow Tanksley, currently in custody at Atascadero State Hospital, filed a

pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning his medical care while he

was a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison. His complaint is now before the court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of 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). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which 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). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that

a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Case 3:09-cv-02621-MHP Document 12 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs violates the Eighth

Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 102-04 (1976). To prove that the response of prison officials to a prisoner's medical

needs was constitutionally deficient, the prisoner must establish (1) a serious medical need

and (2) deliberate indifference to that need by prison officials. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974

F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v.

Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A prison official is deliberately

indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards

that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 837, 844 (1994). 

Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that "on April 21, 2009 to May 2009," a long list of

people denied him "medical treatment of blood clots in both legs without medical text x-rays

for clots to solve clots and also for chest leg arms neck pains, shortness of breath as clots are

serious can kill a person if left untreated." Complaint, p. 3 (errors in source). 

The complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the

defendants. Although a plaintiff is not required to plead "specific factual details not

ascertainable in advance of discovery," Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th

Cir. 1986), he does not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the allegations in the

complaint are mere conclusions, Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989 (9th

Cir. 1976). A complaint must contain sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice

of the claims against them. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). A

complaint that fails to state the specific acts of a defendant which violated the plaintiff's

rights fails to meet the notice requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 

Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff's allegation

that he was denied medical care by a group of people over a two-month period did not 

provide sufficient information to put any defendant fairly on notice of the claims against him

or her.

First, in his amended complaint, plaintiff needs to be clearer as to the nature of his

Case 3:09-cv-02621-MHP Document 12 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

medical need(s). It is not clear from his complaint whether he is complaining about the

response to blood clots, or about the response to various pains throughout his body or his

shortness of breath. He also should explain how he knows that the problem he had was

untreated blood clots, because his allegations indicate that defendants did not do medical

tests to determine whether he had them. Additionally, plaintiff should describe not just the

risk of blood clots, but should also identify any harm he actually suffered as a result of the

alleged denial of medical care. 

Second, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege what the defendants did or

failed to do that amounted to a denial of medical care, e.g., whether plaintiff requested

treatment and received treatment with which he disagrees, whether he received treatment that

he thinks was inadequate, or whether he was simply given no treatment. He must provide

details of what he asked for, when he asked for it , and what the defendants did or failed to

do in response.. 

Third, plaintiff needs to link individual defendants to his claim. He lumped together

nurses, doctors, custodial staff and alleged that they "denied" him medical treatment without

identifying what any one of them actually did or failed to do. In his amended complaint, he

needs to link each defendant to his claim by alleging 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. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (liability may

be imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can show that defendant

proximately caused deprivation of federally protected right). Plaintiff is cautioned that there

is no respondeat superior liability under Section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that

one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. 

Fourth, he referred to "Ms. Mary Jane female RN" on page 2 and "other female Mary

Janes MD's" on page 3 of his complaint. These references appear to be an effort to deal with

persons whose true names are not known to him. The way to deal with unknown persons is

Case 3:09-cv-02621-MHP Document 12 Filed 03/04/10 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to refer to them as John Doe defendants (for the men) and Jane Doe defendants (for the

women), and not to make up a name like "Mary Jane." If plaintiff does not know the true

name of the alleged wrongdoers, he may use Doe defendant designations, so that each person

is separately identified as a Doe defendant, e.g., John Doe # 1, John Doe # 2, Jane Doe # 1,

Jane Doe # 2, etc. He must amend to allege what each Doe defendant did or failed to do that

amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff is cautioned that,

although the use of Doe defendants is acceptable to withstand dismissal of the complaint at

the initial review stage, using Doe defendants creates its own problem: those persons cannot

be served with process in this action until they are identified by their real names. The court

will not stall this action while plaintiff tries to learn the name of the John Doe and Jane Doe

defendants. Rather, plaintiff must promptly take steps to discover the names of the unnamed

defendants and provide that information to the court in an amendment to his pleading. The

burden remains on the plaintiff; the court will not undertake to investigate the names and

identities of unnamed defendants.

In his complaint, plaintiff directed the reader to "see prison medical record at prison"

and "see Salinas Superior Court writ of habeas corpus." Complaint, p. 3. Plaintiff does not

need to attach his prison medical record to his amended complaint to state a claim. However,

he is cautioned that the court does not conduct investigations or retrieve documents for any

of the parties. It is the obligation of each party to gather and present to this court anything

(such as a medical record or a state court case document) that he wants this court to consider

in his action. 

The court notes that plaintiff's handwriting is very difficult to read because it is so

squished together. In future filings, he should not write more than 28 lines of text per page

and should use great care to make his writing legible. 

Finally, administrative remedies must have been exhausted for each claim asserted in

a federal civil rights complaint before the action is filed. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No

action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any

other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility

Case 3:09-cv-02621-MHP Document 12 Filed 03/04/10 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.") 

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must be

filed no later than April 9, 2010, and must include the caption and civil case number used in

this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is cautioned

that his amended complaint must be a complete statement of his claims and will supersede

existing pleadings. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)

("a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

alleged in the amended complaint.") Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline

will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010 _____________________

 Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02621-MHP Document 12 Filed 03/04/10 Page 5 of 5