Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND ALLEN REDWINE, Case No. 15-cv-3109-TEH Plaintiff, v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND M.E. SPEARMAN,
Defendant.
filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [1] Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, I
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). II
Plaintiff states that he has been denied medical treatment and is in severe pain. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A determination of "deliberate indifference" involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's response to that need. Id. at 1059.
A "serious" medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Id. The existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual's daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain are examples of indications that a prisoner has a "serious" need for medical treatment. Id. at 1059-60.
A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he or she knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must 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 should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). “A difference of opinion between a prisoner- patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). and as a result is in severe pain. [2] severe medical epicondylitis Plaintiff states that he has been denied treatment for his He requested to see a specialist to discuss treatment of his elbow pain, but the request was denied. Plaintiff provides no more information and does not identify the actions of any specific defendant, but instead attaches approximately 170 pages of exhibits. The only named Defendant is the warden of the facility.
The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must identify specific defendants and describe how they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff must describe what requests were denied, who denied the requests, what medical care was provided, and how the provided medical care was inadequate and violated the Eighth Amendment. Simply attaching exhibits is insufficient.
III
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as follows:
1. The Clerk shall reclassify this action as a civil rights action. 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO FILE A
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days containing all related claims against all Defendants that Plaintiff wishes to proceed against in this action. The pleading must be simple, concise and direct and must state clearly and succinctly how each and every Defendant is alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. The pleading must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words COURT ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is advised that he must file all of his claims in one complaint and not present them piecemeal to the Court in various letters and other documents. Failure to file a proper First Amended Complaint within twenty-eight days of this order will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff is advised that the First Amended Complaint will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled."). 4. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 07/23/2015 ________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Redwine3109.dwlta.docx
[1] While filed as a habeas action, Plaintiff seeks relief regarding the conditions of his confinement.
[2] Epicondylitis, also known as tennis elbow, is inflammation in the forearm muscles resulting from repetitive strain. See Brown v. Colvin, 2015 WL 3823938, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2015).