Bullock v. Wasco State Prison Medical

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/12/2014. Amended Complaint due by 12/18/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint Form)(Lundstrom, T)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6
7

GORDON BULLOCK,
Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. 1:14 cv 00092 GSA PC

vs.

10

WASCO STATE PRISON MEDICAL,

11

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
IN THIRTY DAYS

12
13
14
15

16
17
18

I.

Screening Requirement
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

19

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

20

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

21

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

22

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

24

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on March 31, 2014 (ECF No. 11).
1

1
2

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

4

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

5

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a

6

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s

8

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the

9

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams,

10

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not

11

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union

12

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268

13

(9th Cir. 1982)).

14

II.

15

Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

16

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, brings this civil rights

17

action against defendant Wasco State Prison Medical Department. Plaintiff claims that he was

18

subjected to inadequate medical care such that it violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on

19

cruel and unusual punishment.

20

Plaintiff arrived at the Wasco Reception Center on August 6, 2013. Plaintiff informed a

21

nurse that he had hepatitis C. She told Plaintiff that he would see a doctor in a few days.

22

Plaintiff alleges that, despite numerous written requests, he never saw a physician. Plaintiff

23

alleges that on October 27, 2013, he “got a lot sick.” Plaintiff had chest pains, a “very fast

24

beating heart” and cold sweats. On October 29, 2013, Plaintiff was sent to the Primary Care

25

Physician. Plaintiff alleges that the doctor never asked him about chest pains. Plaintiff, now

26

incarcerated at Soledad, he has heart problems and high blood pressure.

27

///

28

2

1
2
3
4

A.

Medical Care

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
inmate must show „deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.‟” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)).

5

The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “„a serious medical

6

need‟ by demonstrating that „failure to treat a prisoner‟s condition could result in further

7

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,‟” and (2) “the defendant‟s

8

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v.

9
10

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v.
Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate

11

indifference is shown by “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner‟s pain or possible

12

medical need, and harm caused by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060).

13

Where a prisoner is alleging a delay in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to

14

further harm in order for the prisoner to make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious

15

medical needs. McGuckin at 1060 (citing Shapely v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm‟rs, 766

16

F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)).

17

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth allegations

18

regarding his health care, but fails to name any individual defendants. To state a claim under

19

section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law and (2)

20

the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County

21

of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person deprives another of a

22

constitutional right, where that person „does an affirmative act, participates in another‟s

23

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that

24

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th

25

Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite

26

causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in

27

the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or

28

3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting
Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with conduct
indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s health, resulting in injury
to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply by alleging a serious medical
condition and then charge medical staff in general with the vague allegation that they neglected
his condition. Plaintiff must identify individual defendants, and allege facts indicating that each
defendant was aware of a specific harm to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that
harm. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff
will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

10
11

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to
hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where

12

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under

13

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened.

14

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described

15

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

16

Further, Wasco State Prison and Wasco State Prison Medical Department, as agencies of

17

the state, are immune from suit. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as

18

well as those where the state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural Resources Defense

19

Council v. California Department of Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks,

20

951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada

21

Department of Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell

22

v. Los Angeles Community College District, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989).

23

III.

24

Conclusion and Order
The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims

25

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

26

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

27

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

28

4

1
2
3

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended
complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).
Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what

4

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal

5

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must

6

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

7
8
9

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted).
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,

10

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

11

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an

12

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d

13

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

14

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

15

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

17

Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a
claim;

18

2.

The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

19

3.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file

20
21

an amended complaint;
4.

Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

22

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

23

complaint; and

24
25

5.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action,
with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

1

Dated:

2

/s/ Gary S. Austin

3

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

6

November 12, 2014