1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 WILLIAM B. ANDERSON, No. 2:23-cv-2375 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. ROSENLOF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 §1983. He alleges defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights 19 and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the 21 reasons set forth below, the court finds plaintiff has stated potentially cognizable claims against 22 defendant Mendez but fails to state any other claims. Plaintiff will be given the choice of 23 proceeding immediately on his claims against Mendez or filing a second amended complaint. 25 As described in this court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen complaints 26 brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim 28 in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In 1 addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the 2 deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “A person 3 ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he 4 does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which 5 he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. 6 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 7 I. First Amended Complaint 8 In his first amended complaint, plaintiff again identifies the following defendants: (1) Dr. S. 9 Rosenlof, Senior Psychologist Supervisor; (2) psychologist Dr. Jorge Mendez; and (3) 10 psychiatrist Dr. Milan Pham. (ECF No. 10.) 11 Plaintiff alleges the following. He has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. In 12 July 2023, he was a participant in the prison’s Mental Health Delivery System at the 13 Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) level of care. He was housed in a specialized psychiatric 14 housing unit. On July 26, plaintiff was released from administrative segregation. At that time, he 15 was experiencing symptoms of his mental illness - anxiety, paranoia, auditory hallucinations. 16 (ECF No. 10 at 5.) 17 On August 4, plaintiff had an appointment with defendant Mendez. When plaintiff entered 18 the office, Mendez told him that if he started “verbalizing your complaints towards officers and 19 become agitated, I will press my al[a]rm, so they can come deal with you!” Plaintiff felt this 20 statement was threatening and left the office. As he did so, he told Mendez that he would be 21 filing a grievance regarding the threat. Plaintiff subsequently filed a grievance against Mendez. 22 (ECF No. 10 at 5-6.) 23 After the appointment, Mendez prepared a false report regarding plaintiff and requested an 24 emergency meeting of the Interdisciplinary Treatment Team (“IDTT”) for the purpose of having 25 plaintiff discharged from the EOP program. Plaintiff alleges the false statements included (1) 26 plaintiff did not “present with functional impairments;” (2) plaintiff had “poor boundaries when 27 engaged in RT groups;” and (3) plaintiff was not “currently on psychotropic medications.” 28 //// 1 Shortly thereafter, the three defendants met and discharged plaintiff from the EOP program. 2 (ECF No. 10 at 6-9.) 3 Plaintiff alleges defendants Rosenlof and Pham relied on the false report and were 4 deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious mental health needs. In addition, plaintiff contends 5 Rosenlof and Pham made the decision to discharge plaintiff from the EOP program to punish 6 plaintiff for filing the grievance and to dissuade him from filing further grievances. 7 Plaintiff contends he has suffered anxiety, paranoia, insomnia, depression, auditory 8 hallucinations, hopelessness, and desolation due to being discharged from the EOP program. 9 II. Does Plaintiff State Cognizable Claims for Retaliation? 10 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 11 elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 12 because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's 13 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 14 correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and 15 citations omitted). 16 Plaintiff has alleged a potentially cognizable retaliation claim against defendant Mendez. 17 However, plaintiff fails to allege retaliation claims against Rosenlof and Pham. Plaintiff simply 18 states that Rosenlof and Pham decided to discharge him from the EOP program in retaliation for 19 plaintiff’s grievance against Mendez. However, plaintiff alleges no facts showing that Rosenlof 20 and Pham were aware of plaintiff’s grievance. Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are insufficient 21 to state a potentially cognizable retaliation claim against Rosenlof and Pham. 22 III. Does Plaintiff State Cognizable Claims for Deliberate Indifference? 23 To allege an Eight Amendment medical claim, plaintiff must show that he has a serious 24 medical need and that each defendant responded to that need with deliberate indifference. Farmer 25 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). This court finds plaintiff has adequately alleged a serious 26 medical need. Plaintiff alleges Mendez knew the statements he made in the report were false and 27 it may be inferred that Mendez made them with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious 28 //// 1 medical needs. Plaintiff has stated a minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim against 2 Mendez. 3 Again, however, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim that Rosenlof and 4 Pham violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He alleges no facts to support his contention that 5 Rosenlof and Pham knew Mendez’s statements in the report were false. Nor does plaintiff allege 6 facts showing that the false statements were the basis for those defendants’ decision to remove 7 him from the EOP program. 9 As set forth above, in the first amended complaint plaintiff alleges potentially cognizable 10 claims against defendant Mendez for retaliation and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 11 Plaintiff fails to allege potentially cognizable claims against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff 12 has a choice. He may proceed immediately on the claims found potentially cognizable herein or 13 he may file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that if he chooses to proceed on the 14 claims against Mendez, he will be voluntarily dismissing his other claims and defendants. 15 If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must clearly identify each 16 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is 17 not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each 18 named defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 WILLIAM B. ANDERSON, No. 2:23-cv-2375 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. ROSENLOF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 §1983. He alleges defendants retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights 19 and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the 21 reasons set forth below, the court finds plaintiff has stated potentially cognizable claims against 22 defendant Mendez but fails to state any other claims. Plaintiff will be given the choice of 23 proceeding immediately on his claims against Mendez or filing a second amended complaint. 25 As described in this court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen complaints 26 brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 27 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim 28 in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In 1 addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the 2 deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “A person 3 ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he 4 does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which 5 he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. 6 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 7 I. First Amended Complaint 8 In his first amended complaint, plaintiff again identifies the following defendants: (1) Dr. S. 9 Rosenlof, Senior Psychologist Supervisor; (2) psychologist Dr. Jorge Mendez; and (3) 10 psychiatrist Dr. Milan Pham. (ECF No. 10.) 11 Plaintiff alleges the following. He has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. In 12 July 2023, he was a participant in the prison’s Mental Health Delivery System at the 13 Enhanced Outpatient Program (“EOP”) level of care. He was housed in a specialized psychiatric 14 housing unit. On July 26, plaintiff was released from administrative segregation. At that time, he 15 was experiencing symptoms of his mental illness - anxiety, paranoia, auditory hallucinations. 16 (ECF No. 10 at 5.) 17 On August 4, plaintiff had an appointment with defendant Mendez. When plaintiff entered 18 the office, Mendez told him that if he started “verbalizing your complaints towards officers and 19 become agitated, I will press my al[a]rm, so they can come deal with you!” Plaintiff felt this 20 statement was threatening and left the office. As he did so, he told Mendez that he would be 21 filing a grievance regarding the threat. Plaintiff subsequently filed a grievance against Mendez. 22 (ECF No. 10 at 5-6.) 23 After the appointment, Mendez prepared a false report regarding plaintiff and requested an 24 emergency meeting of the Interdisciplinary Treatment Team (“IDTT”) for the purpose of having 25 plaintiff discharged from the EOP program. Plaintiff alleges the false statements included (1) 26 plaintiff did not “present with functional impairments;” (2) plaintiff had “poor boundaries when 27 engaged in RT groups;” and (3) plaintiff was not “currently on psychotropic medications.” 28 //// 1 Shortly thereafter, the three defendants met and discharged plaintiff from the EOP program. 2 (ECF No. 10 at 6-9.) 3 Plaintiff alleges defendants Rosenlof and Pham relied on the false report and were 4 deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious mental health needs. In addition, plaintiff contends 5 Rosenlof and Pham made the decision to discharge plaintiff from the EOP program to punish 6 plaintiff for filing the grievance and to dissuade him from filing further grievances. 7 Plaintiff contends he has suffered anxiety, paranoia, insomnia, depression, auditory 8 hallucinations, hopelessness, and desolation due to being discharged from the EOP program. 9 II. Does Plaintiff State Cognizable Claims for Retaliation? 10 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 11 elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 12 because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's 13 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 14 correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and 15 citations omitted). 16 Plaintiff has alleged a potentially cognizable retaliation claim against defendant Mendez. 17 However, plaintiff fails to allege retaliation claims against Rosenlof and Pham. Plaintiff simply 18 states that Rosenlof and Pham decided to discharge him from the EOP program in retaliation for 19 plaintiff’s grievance against Mendez. However, plaintiff alleges no facts showing that Rosenlof 20 and Pham were aware of plaintiff’s grievance. Plaintiff’s conclusory statements are insufficient 21 to state a potentially cognizable retaliation claim against Rosenlof and Pham. 22 III. Does Plaintiff State Cognizable Claims for Deliberate Indifference? 23 To allege an Eight Amendment medical claim, plaintiff must show that he has a serious 24 medical need and that each defendant responded to that need with deliberate indifference. Farmer 25 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). This court finds plaintiff has adequately alleged a serious 26 medical need. Plaintiff alleges Mendez knew the statements he made in the report were false and 27 it may be inferred that Mendez made them with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious 28 //// 1 medical needs. Plaintiff has stated a minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim against 2 Mendez. 3 Again, however, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim that Rosenlof and 4 Pham violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He alleges no facts to support his contention that 5 Rosenlof and Pham knew Mendez’s statements in the report were false. Nor does plaintiff allege 6 facts showing that the false statements were the basis for those defendants’ decision to remove 7 him from the EOP program. 9 As set forth above, in the first amended complaint plaintiff alleges potentially cognizable 10 claims against defendant Mendez for retaliation and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 11 Plaintiff fails to allege potentially cognizable claims against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff 12 has a choice. He may proceed immediately on the claims found potentially cognizable herein or 13 he may file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that if he chooses to proceed on the 14 claims against Mendez, he will be voluntarily dismissing his other claims and defendants. 15 If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must clearly identify each 16 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is 17 not required to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each 18 named defendant. The charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint, so 19 defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not 20 provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain 21 statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 22 Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought in 23 the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must contain a 24 request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 25 participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 26 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation 27 of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act 28 he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 1 In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 4 occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 5 The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 6 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 7 heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 9 set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 10 N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 11 which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 12 An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 13 E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all prior pleadings are superseded. 14 Any amended complaint should contain all of the allegations related to his claim in this action. If 15 plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims against the defendant, they must be set forth in the amended 16 complaint. 17 By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has 18 evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 19 sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 21 For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 22 follows: 23 1. Plaintiff has stated potentially cognizable claims for retaliation and deliberate 24 indifference to his medical needs against defendant Mendez. 25 2. Plaintiff’s other claims and defendants are dismissed with leave to amend. 26 3. Plaintiff may choose to proceed immediately on his potentially cognizable claims 27 against defendant Mendez as set out above or he may choose to amend his first amended 28 //// 1 | complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on his potentially cognizable claims, he shall 2 | voluntarily dismiss his other claims and defendants. 3 4. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 4 | attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action. 5 5. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a 6 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. 7 | Dated: June 4, 2024 8 9 10 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | pLB:9 DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/ande2375.FAC lta or proceed 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2 3
4 5
6 7 10 11 WILLIAM B. ANDERSON, No. 2:23-cv-2375 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO PROCEED 14 S. ROSENLOF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his claims for retaliation and deliberate 19 indifference to his medical needs against defendant Mendez in the first amended 20 complaint. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the first 21 amended complaint he is voluntarily dismissing all other claims and defendants. 22 _____ Plaintiff wants to amend the first amended complaint. 23 24 DATED:______________________ 25 26
27 ____________________________________ 28 Plaintiff William B. Anderson, Pro Se