Balzarini v. Ulit et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/18/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

ST. MICHAEL DOC BALZARINI,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER OF SERVICE

DR. W. ULIT, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-1486 PJH (PR)

/
12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

14

1983. Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and he has filed a

15

second amended complaint.

16
17
18

DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

19

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

20

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

21

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

22

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

23

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

24

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

26

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

27

the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

28

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

3

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

5

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

6

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

7

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

8

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

9

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

10

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

11
For the Northern District of California

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

2

United States District Court

1

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

12

679 (2009).

13

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

14

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

15

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

16

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

17

B.

Legal Claims

18

Plaintiff states that defendants have improperly treated his Hepatitis C.1

19

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's

20

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104

21

(1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

22

grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

23

A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the

24

seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to

25

that need. Id. at 1059.

26

A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

27
1

28

Plaintiff is now at Corcoran State Prison and has been informed that issues with
medical care at that facility must be filed in the Eastern District of California.
2

1

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The

2

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of

3

comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

4

individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of

5

indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.

6

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

7

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps

8

to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only

9

“be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a prison official should have

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth

12

Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175,

13

1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison

14

medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v.

15

Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

16

Plaintiff states that he was examined by an outside doctor who made several

17

recommendations for his treatment, but defendant Dr. Chuddy refused to follow the

18

recommendations. This claim is sufficient to proceed as a violation of the Eighth

19

Amendment.

20

Plaintiff’s prior two complaints were dismissed with leave to amend as he had failed

21

to properly describe the specific treatments that were denied by the other defendants. In

22

this second amended complaint, plaintiff has again failed to provide sufficient information

23

regarding the other defendants and how their actions violated his constitutional rights.2 "A

24

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to

25

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."

26

Iqbal, 556 U.S., at 678. Plaintiff’s bare and conlcusory allegations are insufficient to state a

27
2

28

It appears that defendant Dr. Walker’s only involvement was denying an inmate

appeal.
3

1

claim under Iqbal with respect to the remaining defendants.

2

CONCLUSION

3

1. All defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice except for Dr. J. Chudy.

4

2. The clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,

5

without prepayment of fees, copies of the second amended complaint with attachments

6

(Docket No. 10) and copies of this order on the following defendant: Dr. J Chudy at CTF

7

Soledad.

8
9

3. In order to expedite the resolution of this case, the court orders as follows:
a. No later than sixty days from the date of service, defendant shall file a
motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion shall be supported

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Federal Rule of

12

Civil Procedure 56, and shall include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming

13

from the events at issue. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by

14

summary judgment, she shall so inform the court prior to the date her summary judgment

15

motion is due. All papers filed with the court shall be promptly served on the plaintiff.

16

b. At the time the dispositive motion is served, defendant shall also serve, on

17

a separate paper, the appropriate notice or notices required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d

18

952, 953-954 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4

19

(9th Cir. 2003). See Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 940-941 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rand and

20

Wyatt notices must be given at the time motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss

21

for nonexhaustion is filed, not earlier); Rand at 960 (separate paper requirement).

22

c. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion, if any, shall be filed with the

23

court and served upon defendants no later than thirty days from the date the motion was

24

served upon him. Plaintiff must read the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING,”

25

which is provided to him pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 953-954 (9th Cir.

26

1998) (en banc), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988).

27
28

If defendant files an unenumerated motion to dismiss claiming that plaintiff failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), plaintiff
4

1

should take note of the attached page headed “NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION),”

2

which is provided to him as required by Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 4 (9th

3

Cir. 2003).

4
5
6
7
8
9

days after the opposition is served upon her.
e. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is
due. No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.
4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendant, or
defendant’s counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the
document to defendants or defendants' counsel.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

d. If defendant wishes to file a reply brief, she shall do so no later than fifteen

5. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the

13

parties may conduct discovery.

14

6. It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court

15

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

16

of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

17

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: December 18, 2013.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

21
22

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Balzarini1486.service.wpd

23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1

NOTICE -- WARNING (SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

2

If defendants move for summary judgment, they are seeking to have your case

3

dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue

7

of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result

8

of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter

9

of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

10

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot

11
For the Northern District of California

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

6

United States District Court

5

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

12

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as

13

provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's declarations and

14

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not

15

submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered

16

against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be

17

no trial.

18
19
20
21
22

NOTICE -- WARNING (EXHAUSTION)
If defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust, they are
seeking to have your case dismissed. If the motion is granted it will end your case.
You have the right to present any evidence you may have which tends to show that

23

you did exhaust your administrative remedies. Such evidence may be in the form of

24

declarations (statements signed under penalty of perjury) or authenticated documents, that

25

is, documents accompanied by a declaration showing where they came from and why they

26

are authentic, or other sworn papers, such as answers to interrogatories or depositions.

27
28

If defendants file a motion to dismiss and it is granted, your case will be dismissed
and there will be no trial.
6