Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120210_0001998.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 11:26:56
Document Index: 721332220

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Ebony Haynes v. J. Walker
EBONY HAYNES, PLAINTIFF,v.J. WALKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). After a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint does not significantly differ from the original complaint. It alleges that defendant Walker delayed plaintiff's medical treatment when he failed to examine and treat plaintiff for his shoulder injury. It alleges that while performing surgery on plaintiff's right shoulder, defendant Shifflett placed a metal anchor in plaintiff's shoulder without plaintiff's consent, and that plaintiff experienced pain as a result. It also alleges that defendant Nguyen falsely reported that x-rays did not reveal any cause for plaintiff's pain, but that defendant Walker later revealed to plaintiff that a metal anchor had been placed in plaintiff's shoulder. In dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend pursuant to § 1915A, the court informed plaintiff of the following:
Plaintiff purports to bring claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendants Shifflett, Nguyen, and Walker.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Shifflett mistakenly left a piece of metal in plaintiff's shoulder when performing surgery on August 27, 2008. Compl., ¶ 9. Plaintiff alleges that on March 18, 2009, defendant Nguyen informed plaintiff that there were no MRI results to show that there was any metal in plaintiff's shoulder. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Walker, a supervisor, denied plaintiff's inmate appeal complaining of pain in his shoulder caused by the metal that Shifflett allegedly left behind. Id. at ¶ 14. Walker's decision denying plaintiff's inmate appeal is attached as an exhibit to the complaint. Id. at 20, 26. The decision notes that metal anchors were used to stabilize plaintiff's shoulder, and that various medical professionals concluded that they did not need to be removed. Id. The decision also notes that plaintiff had been prescribed pain medication. Id.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to suggest that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs. Neither a defendant's negligence nor a mere difference in opinion regarding the appropriate course of treatment will support an Eighth Amendment claim. Additionally, there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1993). That is, plaintiff may not sue any supervisor on a theory that the supervisor is liable for the acts of his or her subordinates. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). "Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. A supervisor may be liable "for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them." Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor may also be held liable if he or she implemented "a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation." Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, to proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint.
Dckt. No. 7 at 3-5 (footnote omitted).
Like the original complaint, the amended complaint fails to suggest that any defendant acted with the requisite deliberate indifference. It alleges that defendant Walker delayed plaintiff's medical treatment for an unknown amount of time. The amended complaint does not allege why plaintiff needed medical treatment from Walker or whether Walker was aware of this need. The amended complaint does not show that Walker consciously disregarded any serious risk of harm to plaintiff in allegedly failing to examine or treat plaintiff's shoulder. Nor does the amended complaint show that either defendant Shifflett or defendant Nguyen were anything worse than negligent with respect to plaintiff's shoulder injury.
The court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, as he fails to state sufficient allegations showing that any of defendants' alleged actions violated plaintiff's federal rights. Plaintiff has had an opportunity to amend and appears unable to allege a cognizable claim for relief. Therefore, the court will not grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. See Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts.").
1. The amended complaint is dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and