1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ERNEST LEE VADEN, No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR ROBERT L MAYES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983 against employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 19 at California State Prison, Solano (CSP, Solano). This proceeding was referred to this court by 20 Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a 22 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 24 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 25 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 26 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 27 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 28 1 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 2 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 4 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 5 Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain, among 6 other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 7 relief.” Plaintiff’s complaint is 30 pages and concerns numerous interactions with health care 8 professionals spanning four years at CSP Solano. Also, much of the information included in the 9 complaint is not relevant to stating a claim upon which relief can be granted, but is, at best, 10 unnecessary background information. With respect to some of the defendants, plaintiff fails to 11 make any allegations suggesting personal participation in any of the deprivations alleged. 12 Liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 case “arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the 13 defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 14 As plaintiff’s complaint is not “short and plain,” it must be dismissed. The court will, 15 however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 16 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must comply with 17 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To that end, the amended complaint may not 18 exceed 20 pages and must be written with normal spacing and font size. 19 Also, plaintiff may bring as many claims as he likes against a particular defendant in his 20 amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). But claims brought against other defendants must 21 arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as a claim 22 against the first defendant. Fed R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 23 In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in his amended complaint, 24 plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of 25 plaintiff’s constitutional rights, see Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980), alleging in 26 specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 27 Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a 28 violation of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 1 (1976). A prison official is liable for such a violation only when injury results from the official’s 2 deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id.; see Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 3 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Lopez v. 4 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of two parts. Jett, 439 6 F.3d at 1096, citing McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other 7 grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). First, the 8 plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner’s 9 condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of 10 pain.’” Id., citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. “Examples of serious medical needs include ‘[t]he 11 existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of 12 comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 13 individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.’” Lopez, 203 F. 3d 14 at 1131-1132, citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60. 15 Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 16 indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. This second prong is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act 17 or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the 18 indifference. Id. Under this standard, the prison official must not only “be aware of facts from 19 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but that person 20 “must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This “subjective 21 approach” focuses only “on what a defendant’s mental attitude actually was.” Id. at 839. A 22 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 23 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106. A 24 difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, nor does 25 a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of medical 26 treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 27 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
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 ERNEST LEE VADEN, No. 2:19-cv-2216 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DR ROBERT L MAYES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983 against employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 19 at California State Prison, Solano (CSP, Solano). This proceeding was referred to this court by 20 Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a 22 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 24 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 25 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 26 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 27 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 28 1 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 2 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 4 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 5 Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain, among 6 other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 7 relief.” Plaintiff’s complaint is 30 pages and concerns numerous interactions with health care 8 professionals spanning four years at CSP Solano. Also, much of the information included in the 9 complaint is not relevant to stating a claim upon which relief can be granted, but is, at best, 10 unnecessary background information. With respect to some of the defendants, plaintiff fails to 11 make any allegations suggesting personal participation in any of the deprivations alleged. 12 Liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 case “arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the 13 defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 14 As plaintiff’s complaint is not “short and plain,” it must be dismissed. The court will, 15 however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 16 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must comply with 17 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To that end, the amended complaint may not 18 exceed 20 pages and must be written with normal spacing and font size. 19 Also, plaintiff may bring as many claims as he likes against a particular defendant in his 20 amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). But claims brought against other defendants must 21 arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as a claim 22 against the first defendant. Fed R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 23 In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in his amended complaint, 24 plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of 25 plaintiff’s constitutional rights, see Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980), alleging in 26 specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 27 Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a 28 violation of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 1 (1976). A prison official is liable for such a violation only when injury results from the official’s 2 deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id.; see Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 3 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Lopez v. 4 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of two parts. Jett, 439 6 F.3d at 1096, citing McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other 7 grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). First, the 8 plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner’s 9 condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of 10 pain.’” Id., citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. “Examples of serious medical needs include ‘[t]he 11 existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of 12 comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 13 individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.’” Lopez, 203 F. 3d 14 at 1131-1132, citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60. 15 Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 16 indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. This second prong is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act 17 or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the 18 indifference. Id. Under this standard, the prison official must not only “be aware of facts from 19 which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but that person 20 “must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This “subjective 21 approach” focuses only “on what a defendant’s mental attitude actually was.” Id. at 839. A 22 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 23 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106. A 24 difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, nor does 25 a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of medical 26 treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 27 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, mere delay of 28 medical treatment, “without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical 1 | indifference.” Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). 2 | Where a prisoner alleges that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the 3 | prisoner must show that the delay caused “significant harm and that Defendants should have 4 | known this to be the case.” Hallett, 296 F.3d at 745-46; see McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. 5 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 6 | make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 7 | complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 8 | general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 9 | F.2d 55,57 (Oth Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 10 | longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 11 | complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted. 14 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 15 | shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 16 || Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 17 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 18 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 19 | complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 20 | Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the 21 | docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 22 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 23 || be dismissed. 24 | Dated: March 18, 2020 dp. A. fe 29 CAROLYN K. DELANEY : 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 | 1 28 lamo2218.14