(PC) Obujen v. CDC et al, No. 1:2007cv01308 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending DISMISSAL of this action, WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim under section 1983 re 15 Amended Complaint filed by Douglas Obujen; Motion referred to Judge Ishii,signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 04/06/2009. (Objections to F&R due by 5/11/2009) (Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Obujen v. CDC et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DOUGLAS OBUJEN, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01308-AWI-SMS PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983 v. CDC, et al., (Doc. 15) 13 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 14 / 15 Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint 16 I. Screening Requirement 17 Plaintiff Douglas Obujen is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on September 6, 2007. The Court dismissed 19 Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim on May 15, 2008, and Plaintiff 20 filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2008. 21 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 26 /// 27 28 1 Plaintiff was incarcerated when he brought this suit. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 “Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 2 exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 3 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and 4 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 5 “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the 6 grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading 7 standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 8 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 9 of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 10 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 11 II. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim 12 At the time of the events giving rise to the claim at issue in this action, Plaintiff was housed 13 at Avenal State Prison. Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States 14 Constitution against Defendant Doe, who was the Chief Medical Officer at Avenal on or around 15 September 2006. Plaintiff alleges a claim for denial of adequate medical care for pneumonia, Valley 16 Fever, pleurisy, and whooping cough, which caused Plaintiff to lose thirty pounds in two weeks. 17 “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate 18 must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 19 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)). The two part 20 test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical need’ by 21 demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or 22 the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s response to the need was 23 deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 24 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th 25 Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal quotations omitted)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a 26 purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused 27 by the indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). 28 As Plaintiff was previously notified, Plaintiff is required to show that the named defendant(s) 2 1 (1) acted under color of state law, and (2) committed conduct which deprived Plaintiff of a federal 2 right. Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2007). “A person deprives another of a 3 constitutional right, where that person ‘does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative 4 acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes the 5 deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Id. at 988 (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 6 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he ‘requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of 7 direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by 8 others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the 9 constitutional injury.’” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). Further, “there is no pure respondeat 10 superior liability under § 1983, [and] a supervisor [may only be held] liable for the constitutional 11 violations of subordinates ‘if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the 12 violations and failed to act to prevent them.’” Id. (quoting Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 13 Cir. 1989)). 14 Plaintiff has not alleged any facts linking Defendant Doe to acts or omissions which support 15 a claim that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 16 Generalized allegations of neglect, and that Avenal State Prison knew of the risk of Valley Fever but 17 failed to do anything about it are insufficient to support a claim against Defendant Doe. Although 18 accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the 19 speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) 20 (citations omitted). Because Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that 21 Defendant Doe “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [Plaintiff’s] health . . . ,” Plaintiff 22 fails to state a claim against Defendant for violation of the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 23 511 U.S. 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994). 24 III. Conclusion and Recommendation 25 Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Doe for violation of 26 the Eighth Amendment, or for any other federal violation. Because Plaintiff was previously notified 27 of the deficiencies in his claim but did not cure them in his amended complaint, the Court HEREBY 28 /// 3 1 RECOMMENDS dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 2 1983. 3 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) 5 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 6 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 9 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: icido3 April 6, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
