Haley v. Ogbuehi et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Certificate of Service Attached) Amended Complaint due by 5/12/2016. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/11/16. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DWAYNE MICHAEL HALEY,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND

v.

9

IFEOMA OGBUEHI, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00940-PJH

12
13

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

14

1983. Defendants removed this case from state court and paid the filing fee. Defendants

15

have also filed a motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District of California.
DISCUSSION

16
17
18

I.

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

22

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

23

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

24

Pacifica Police 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

26

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

27

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim

28

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

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

2

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

3

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the

4

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to

5

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550

6

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state

7

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme

8

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal

9

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual

10

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

12

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

13
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 II.

LEGAL CLAIMS

18

Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied proper medical treatment for Valley

19

Fever.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

banc). A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two

25

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the

26

defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059.

27

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

28

result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id.
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at

5

1059-60.
A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a

6
7

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

8

steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must

9

not only “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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290

13

F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and

14

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

15

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff states that he was diagnosed with Valley Fever in 2011 while incarcerated

16
17

at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff

18

describes treatment he received while in PVSP, though he fails to identify any specific

19

individuals. He was transferred to Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), which is in this

20

district, on August 28, 2015.1 Plaintiff states that an unidentified medical assistant at CTF

21

told him he did not have Valley Fever when plaintiff sought treatment. Plaintiff requested

22

to see a specialist, but the request was denied because he was told he had tested

23

negative for Valley Fever. Yet, he was prescribed Naproxen. Plaintiff later asked

24

defendant Dr. Friederichs to explain the test because prior tests indicated that he was

25

positive. Dr. Friederichs responded that the computer only goes back to 2015. Plaintiff’s

26

additional requests to see a specialist were denied and he continued to experience

27
1

28

Plaintiff was transferred to CTF from Chuckwalla Valley State Prison, which lies in the
Central District.
3

1
2

migraines, tunnel vision, fatigue, joint aches, and periodic nose bleeds.
Plaintiff names as defendants Dr. Ogbuehi, Dr. Brown, Dr. Bright, Dr. Ngyuyen, Dr.

3

Coleman, and Dr. Friederichs. Other than the brief discussion concerning Dr.

4

Friederichs’s actions at CTF, plaintiff has failed to identify any specific actions of the other

5

defendants and where it occurred. It is not clear if the other defendants are employed at

6

CTF or a prison in another district.

7

Defendants Ogbuehi, Bright and Friederichs have already been served and are

8

represented by the Office of the Attorney General. Defendants note that Bright and

9

Friederichs work at CTF and Ogbuehi works at PVSP. Defendants Brown, Ngyuyen and
Coleman have not been served and it is not known where they treated plaintiff. The

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

served defendants have also filed a motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District of

12

California because there are currently 24 cases pending in that district regarding inmates

13

bringing suit against prison staff with respect to allegations that they contracted valley

14

fever while incarcerated at PVSP. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to transfer

15

the case.

16

As currently pled, the complaint fails to state a claim against any named

17

defendant. Plaintiff’s allegation that Friederichs told him he was negative for Valley Fever

18

and could not access older records does not present an Eighth Amendment violation.

19

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff should provide more

20

details regarding his symptoms, the treatment he received, and how the treatment or lack

21

thereof violated the constitution. Plaintiff should also describe the actions of each named

22

defendant and provide details of their involvement in this case. He should also more

23

clearly identify at what prisons the incidents occurred and where the defendants treated

24

him. The court will not rule on the motion to transfer until plaintiff files an amended

25

complaint with more information. Plaintiff may also address the motion to transfer in an

26

amended complaint.

27
28
4

1

USION
CONCLU

2

1. The complaint is DISMISS
e
SED with le
eave to amend in acco
ordance wit the
th

3

sta
andards set forth abov The am
t
ve.
mended com
mplaint mus be filed no later than May 12,
st
o
n

4

2016, and mu include the caption and civil case numbe used in th order an the
ust
t
er
his
nd

5

wo
ords AMENDED COMP
PLAINT on the first pa
age. Becau an ame
use
ended comp
plaint

6

completely replaces the original com
mplaint, pla
aintiff must include in it all the cla
aims he

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

wis
shes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 96 F.2d 125 1262 (9t Cir. 1992 He may
63
58,
th
2).
y
not incorporat material from the or
te
riginal comp
plaint by re
eference.
2. It is the plaintif respons
s
ff's
sibility to pro
osecute this case. Pla
aintiff must keep the
cou informed of any change of address by filing a separ
urt
d
rate paper w the cle headed
with
erk
“No
otice of Cha
ange of Address,” and must com
d
mply with the court's ord
e
ders in a tim
mely
fas
shion. Failu to do so may resul in the dism
ure
o
lt
missal of th action fo failure to prosecute
his
or
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr
e
rocedure 41
1(b).
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: April 11, 2016

16
17

PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
N
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

18
19

\\CA
ANDOAK\Data\Users\PJHALL\_p
psp\2016\2016_0
00940_Haley_v_O
Ogbuehi_(PSP)\
\16-cv-00940-PJH-dwlta.docx

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1
2

UNITED STATES D
DISTRICT C
COURT

3

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CAL
N
RN
CT
LIFORNIA

4
5

DWAYNE MICHAEL HA
ALEY,

Case No. 16-cv-009
940-PJH

Plaintiff,
6
v.

CERTIFIC
CATE OF S
SERVICE

7
8

IF
FEOMA OG
GBUEHI, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned hereby ce
u
d,
ertify that I am an emp
ployee in th Office of the Clerk,
he
f
U.S District Court, North
S.
C
hern Distric of Californ
ct
nia.
That on April 11, 2016, I SER
2
RVED a tru and corre copy(ies) of the att
ue
ect
tached, by
pla
acing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelo addres
c
ope
ssed to the person(s) h
hereinafter
list
ted, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing sa copy(ies into an
d
y
aid
s)
inte
er-office de
elivery receptacle locat in the C
ted
Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Dw
wayne Mich
hael Haley ID: T08975
Ca
alifornia Tra
aining Facility
P.O Box 689
O.
So
oledad, CA 93960

19
20

ated: April 11, 2016
Da

21
22
23

Susan Y. So
oong
Clerk, United States Dis
d
strict Court
C

24
25
26

y:________
_________
_________
By
Nichole Peric Deputy C
c,
Clerk to the
e
Honorable P
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
N

27
28
6