Dean v. Sharffenberg et al

Filing 13

ORDER Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/27/15. 30-Day Deadline. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint Form)(Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ALTON DEAN,

13

Plaintiff,

14

Case No. 1:14-cv-00768 DLB PC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

15

ROBERT SHARFFENBERG, M.D., et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff Alton Dean (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18
19

pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on May 12,

20

2014.1 He names Robert Sharffenberg, M.D., Nurse Lynn, and Nurse Connie as Defendants.

21

A.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

22
23

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

24

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

25

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

26

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

27

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

28
1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate on May 29, 2014.

1

1
2

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other
federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092
(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or
omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior
liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d
1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009);
Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim
for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).
The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
B.

SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Corcoran Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility

(“CSATF”) where the events giving rise to this action took place.
Plaintiff alleges the following. Prior to March 2, 2012, Plaintiff had been receiving adequate
treatment for approximately 17 years. From March 2, 2012, to the present, Defendant has denied
him adequate care. Plaintiff states he has been attacked four times by inmates from March 29, 2012,
to the present. Plaintiff states he is a wheelchair-bound hemiplegic who has been taking narcotic
pain medication for 17 years. Plaintiff states his wheelchair gloves, wedge pillow, antiseptic
2

1

antibiotic skin cleanser, creams, and gels have all been denied by the Defendant.

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

Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $500,000.00 as well as a full pardon.
C.

DISCUSSION
1.

Linkage

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the
violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009);
Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of
Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist
some causal connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75
(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v.
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012).
Here, Plaintiff fails to state how Defendants Sharffenberg, Lynn and Connie participated in
the violations at issue. Plaintiff must specifically state how each named Defendant personally acted
to deprive him of his rights. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
2.

Medical Treatment

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects
prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of
confinement.

Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101
S.Ct. 2392 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While conditions of confinement may be, and often
are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.
Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) (quotation marks omitted).
Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food,
clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir.
2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in
prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To
3

1
2
3
4

maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, inmates must show deliberate indifference to a substantial
risk of harm to their health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d
1144, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2009); Morgan,
465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical
care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference
to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012),
overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014);
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat
[his] condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680
F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Deliberate indifference is shown by
“(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm
caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The
requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of
due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Here, Plaintiff’s allegation that he was denied adequate medical care is too vague to state a
claim. Further, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant deprived him certain health aids, cleansers and
creams does not present an Eighth Amendment violation. Plaintiff fails to show a serious medical
need that requires treatment lest significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain
would result. In addition, Plaintiff’s allegations do not demonstrate that any named Defendant acted
with the requisite state of mind.

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a deliberate indifference claim against any named
Defendant. Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
D.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar v.
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what
each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may
not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101
(2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without
reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

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

under section 1983;
2.

The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3.

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

amended complaint; and
4.

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 27, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
5