(PC) Clark v. Saipher ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER K. CLARK, Case No. 2:21-cv-01326-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 MARSHALL SAIPHER, et al., ECF No. 6 15 Defendants. SCREENING ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 16 (1) FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; OR 17 (2) STAND BY HIS COMPLAINT 18 SUBJECT TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE 19 DISMISSED 20 ECF No. 5 21 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 22 23 Plaintiff Christopher Clark is a state inmate proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 24 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that he has received mediocre medical 25 treatment. I find that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed an application to 26 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the proper showing and will be granted. 27 28 1 Screening and Pleading Requirements 2 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 3 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 4 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 5 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 6 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 7 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 9 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 10 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 12 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 13 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 14 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 15 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 16 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 17 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 18 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 19 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 20 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 21 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 22 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 23 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 24 Analysis 25 Plaintiff alleges that he was diagnosed with internal hemorrhoids in 2013. ECF No. 5 at 3. 26 He claims that his medical treatment has been “mediocre”—which has included several 27 colonoscopies, intermittent prescriptions for different medications, and several conversations with 28 doctors at Wasco State Prison and California Health Care Facility. Id. He claims that he told 1 nurse practitioner Marshall Saipher and Chief Physician and Surgeon R. Singh that he was in 2 pain, but that their response was what he “stated in [his] Health Care Grievance Appeal and 3 Government Claim Form” and that they “delayed and denied effective medical treatment.” Id. 4 Plaintiff did not include the health care grievance appeal with his complaint or allege facts from 5 it. Further, he states that he has not received a hemorrhoidectomy. Id. 6 Plaintiff’s claims cannot survive screening. To state an Eighth Amendment claim for 7 deliberate indifference based on allegations of delay or denial of treatment, a plaintiff must allege 8 that a defendant acted with deliberate indifference. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 9 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, plaintiff has not pled any facts from which the court could reasonably infer 10 that any defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. To the extent that plaintiff alleges any 11 wrongdoing by Saipher and Singh, that wrongdoing appears to be limited to a disagreement over 12 treatment. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (finding that a disagreement over the necessity of or 13 extent of medical treatment does not establish deliberate indifference). Plaintiff also names Anise 14 Adams and Kathleen Allison as defendants. ECF No. 5 at 3. Plaintiff’s claim against Adams 15 fails because he has not alleged any facts concerning Adams. As for Allison, the only allegation 16 he lodges against her is that she is “responsible for everything the staff does!” Id. Plaintiff’s 17 claim against Allison fails because he has only alleged that she knew of alleged constitutional 18 violations. See Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268 (concluding that vague and conclusory allegations 19 concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient to 20 support a claim). 21 Conclusion 22 The court has screened plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a cognizable 23 claim against any defendant. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed 24 with this suit. As explained below, such an amended complaint would need to allege what each 25 defendant did and why each defendant’s actions violated plaintiff’s rights. If plaintiff fails to 26 amend his complaint within thirty days, I will issue findings and recommendations that plaintiff’s 27 complaint be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order. 28 1 Should plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, the amended complaint should be brief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of 3 plaintiff’s rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . 4 to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 5 550 U.S. at 570). Plaintiff should note that a short, concise statement of the allegations in 6 chronological order will assist the court in identifying his claims. Plaintiff should name each 7 defendant and explain what happened, describing personal acts by each individual defendant that 8 resulted in the violation of plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff should also describe any harm he suffered 9 from the violation of his rights. Plaintiff should not add unrelated issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18; 10 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different 11 defendants belong in different suits . . . .”). 12 Any amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 13 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and must be complete on its face without 14 reference to the prior, superseded pleading, see E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended 15 complaint is filed, previous complaints no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an 16 amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 17 defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended 18 Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of 19 perjury. 20 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is granted. 22 2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must either file an Amended 23 Complaint or advise the court he wishes stand by his current complaint. 24 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 25 4. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form. 26 27 28 1 | 1718 SO ORDERED. 3 ( — Dated: __March 28, 2022 Jess Vote 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 29 23 24 25 26 27 28