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

WINSTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-0098-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed 

this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and 

Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. 

I

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of 

cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity 

or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss 

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a 

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 
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

1990).

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. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II

Plaintiff states that he has received inadequate medical 

care.

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates 

the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin 

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

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate 

indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the 

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the 

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059. 

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a 

prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury 

or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The 

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would 

find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence 

of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's 

daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial 

pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" 

need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60. 
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

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she 

knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm 

and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to 

abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The 

prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. 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. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 

(9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisonerpatient 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). 

Plaintiff states that Defendants failed to provide adequate 

treatment for his serious medical needs. He seeks money damages 

and injunctive relief. Plaintiff states that he suffers from 

constant pain regarding his shoulder; however, he provides no 

more information. It is not clear the nature of his injury or 

medical problem, nor does he describe the treatment that is 

needed which has been denied. Plaintiff states he was denied 

medical care on February 14, 2016, but he fails to describe the 

care that was denied. In order to obtain injunctive relief, 

Plaintiff must provide more information concerning the relief he 

seeks. While he has set forth the basic elements of the claim he 

has failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support 

the claim. Plaintiff’s original complaint contained the same 

deficiencies, and he was informed that he needed to provide more 
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

information in an amended complaint. Unfortunately, the amended 

complaint is substantially similar to the original complaint and 

Plaintiff has failed to provide additional information.

A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The United States Supreme 

Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of 

Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a 

complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When 

there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume 

their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give 

rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 679 (2009).

The amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to 

provide more information. Plaintiff should describe the medical 

problems with his shoulder and the specific actions of each 

Defendant that violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff 

should describe what specific medical care was denied and how it 

violated his constitutional rights.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

LEAVE TO FILE A Second AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight 

days containing all related claims against all Defendants that 

Plaintiff wishes to proceed against in this action. The pleading 

must be simple, concise and direct and must state clearly and 

succinctly how each and every Defendant is alleged to have 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 

F.2d at 634. The pleading must include the caption and civil 

case number used in this order and the words COURT ORDERED Second

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is advised that 

he must file all of his claims in one complaint and not present 

them piecemeal to the Court in various letters and other 

documents. Failure to file a proper Second Amended Complaint 

within twenty-eight days of this order will result in the 

dismissal of this case.

2. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled.").

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/11/2017

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.17\Williams0098.dwlta2.docx