(PC) Clark v. Saipher ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER C. CLARK, Case No. 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP (PC) 11 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 12 v. (1) PROCEED ONLY WITH HIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT 13 MARSHALL SAIPHER, et al., DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AND CALIFORNIA TORT CLAIMS ACT 14 Defendants. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SAIPHER AND NASEER; OR 15 (2) DELAY SERVING ANY 16 DEFENDANT AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 17 ECF No. 18 18 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 19 20 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants violated his 22 Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care for internal hemorrhoids. ECF 23 No. 18 at 4-5. He also brings those same claims under the California Torts Claims Act 24 (“CTCA”). Id. at 14. After reviewing the allegations in the amended complaint, I find that 25 plaintiff has stated cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and CTCA claims 26 against defendants Saipher and Naseer. No other claims are viable. Plaintiff may proceed only 27 with his claims against Saipher and Naseer, or he may delay serving any defendant and file 28 another amended complaint. 1 Screening Order 2 I. Screening and Pleading Requirements 3 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 4 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 5 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a 6 claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 7 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 10 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 11 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 13 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 14 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 15 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 16 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 17 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 18 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 19 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 20 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 21 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 22 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 23 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 24 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 25 26 27 28 1 II. Analysis 2 Plaintiff alleges that, since 2013, he has suffered from internal hemorrhoids that cause 3 intense pain and bleeding. ECF No. 18 at 4-5. He was approved for surgery on these 4 hemorrhoids in 2015. Id. at 5. Defendant Saipher was his primary care provider and, without 5 medical justification, delayed this surgery until 2021. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff claims that defendant 6 Naseer was Saipher’s supervising physician and aware of the needless delay. Id. at 6-7. These 7 allegations are sufficient to state viable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and CTCA 8 claims against both defendants. 9 Plaintiff’s other claims are non-cognizable. As for defendants Singh and Gates, he 10 alleges, in what appears to be boilerplate language, that these defendants denied his medical 11 grievances and did not meaningfully weigh his allegations. Id. at 7-8. Prisoners have no right to 12 a particular grievance procedure, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), and 13 plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that these defendants were involved in or aware of the 14 deficiencies in his care. 15 Plaintiff also brings claims against two “Doe” defendants—a food administrator and a 16 pharmacist. ECF No. 18 at 9-10. He alleges that the food administrator failed to provide him 17 with a special date in the days before his surgery and that the pharmacist failed to ensure that his 18 prescriptions were timely filled. Id. These allegations are threadbare and do not contain any 19 specific allegations that, taken as true, would show these defendants acted with deliberate 20 indifference rather than simple negligence. 21 Plaintiff may either proceed only with the cognizable claims identified above, or he may 22 delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. If plaintiff decides to file an 23 amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. 24 Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This means that the amended 25 complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. See E.D. 26 Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves 27 any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, plaintiff will need 28 to assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in sufficient detail. The amended 1 | complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case 2 | number. 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 4 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff either advise that he wishes 5 || to proceed only with his Eighth Amendment and CTCA claims against defendants Saipher and 6 | Naseer or delay serving any defendant and submit another amended complaint. If he elects to 7 | proceed with the viable claims, he must voluntarily dismiss all other claims and defendants. 8 2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ October 3, 2022 Q————. 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28