# White v. Dr. Adeyamo > District Court, N.D. California · August 19, 2024 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639208 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** August 19, 2024 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639208 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JESSIE TAYLOR WHITE, Case No. 24-cv-03785-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 9 v. 10 WARDEN, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), has filed a 14 pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court 15 for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma 16 pauperis in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 20 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 22 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 24 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 25 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 2 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 3 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 4 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 5 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 6 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 7 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 8 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 9 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 10 B. Complaint 11 The complaint names the following defendants: “Warden, my CC2 treatment team, & 2 12 med drs.” The complaint states that Plaintiff has been unable to obtain the names of these 13 individuals because these individuals have refused to provide Plaintiff with their full names. 14 The complaint makes the following allegations. Plaintiff’s religious beliefs prohibit the 15 consumption of man-made medication, and he has informed “everyone” of this. But “everyone” 16 lied under oath that Plaintiff’s religious beliefs are part of his mania and obtained a court order 17 authorizing the forcible administration of medication. Plaintiff is currently being forcibly 18 medicated against his will and in violation of his religious beliefs. These medications “have side 19 effects and put [Plaintiff’s] life & health in danger.” See generally Dkt. No. 1. 20 The Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend for the following reasons. 21 First, the use of “John Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored in the Ninth Circuit, see 22 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980), in part because it is effectively impossible 23 for the United States Marshal to serve an anonymous defendant. The Court’s general practice is to 24 dismiss Doe defendants without prejudice and, if the plaintiff is able to identify the unknown 25 defendant through discovery, allow the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to name the 26 intended defendant. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642. In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff 27 must identify by name the individual prison official or medical personnel who allegedly violated 1 medical records or using the CDCR Form 22. 2 Second, the complaint does not identify any federal law or federal constitution provision 3 that was violated. It appears that Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a violation of the First 4 Amendment’s free exercise clause and/or his Eighth Amendment to be free of deliberate 5 indifference to his serious medical needs. However, the complaint does not state a cognizable 6 First Amendment or Eighth Amendment claim. 7 For a prisoner to establish a First Amendment free exercise violation, he must show that 8 prison regulation or official burdened practice of religion without any justification reasonably 9 related to legitimate penological interests. See Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883-84 (9th Cir. 10 2008). The prisoner must show that the religious practice at issue satisfies two criteria: (1) the 11 proffered belief must be sincerely held and (2) the claim must be rooted in religious belief, not in 12 purely secular philosophical concerns. Malik v. Brown, 16 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff 13 has not identified either the religion or the religious belief or practice that prohibits the 14 consumption of man-made medication. The conclusory statement that prison officials’ actions 15 violated Plaintiff’s religion is insufficient to state a First Amendment violation. 16 The Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment prohibits 17 correctional officials from being deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. See 18 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves 19 an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of 20 the defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 21 1992), overruled in part on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 22 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The conclusory statement that the court-ordered medications put 23 Plaintiff’s life and health in danger is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment violation. 24 Third, the complaint does not link the warden, Plaintiff’s CC2 team, or the two unnamed 25 medical doctors to any of the alleged actions or inactions. Referring generally to “everyone” or 26 “defendants” is insufficient to state the required causal connection. 27 The Court dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim, but grants Plaintiff leave to 1 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant leave to amend unless pleading could not possibly 2 be cured by allegation of other facts). In preparing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should 3 identify the defendants by name, specify what each defendant did that violated his rights under the 4 federal Constitution and federal law, and identify the federal constitutional provision or law that 5 was violated. If Plaintiff seeks to state a First Amendment free exercise claim, he should identify 6 his religion and what religious beliefs or dictates prohibit taking man-made medication. If 7 Plaintiff seeks to state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs or 8 inmate safety, Plaintiff should specify how the court-ordered medication put his life and health in 9 danger, i.e. identify the court-ordered medication, identify the side effects, and identify how the 10 side effects put his life or health at danger. Plaintiff is advised that a difference of opinion 11 between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment, a difference of 12 medical opinion as to the need to pursue one course of treatment, and medical malpractice or 13 negligence do not give rise to a Section 1983 claim. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 14 (9th Cir. 1981); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058-61 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff is further 15 advised that Section 1983 liability may be imposed on a defendant only if the plaintiff can show 16 that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. 17 Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). There is no Section 1983 liability simply because an 18 individual supervised the alleged wrongdoer. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 19 1989) (no respondent superior liability, or supervisory liability, under Section 1983, i.e., no 20 liability under theory that one is liable simply because he supervises person who has violated 21 plaintiff’s right). 22 CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. 24 Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint 25 that addresses the identified deficiencies. The amended complaint must include the caption and 26 civil case number used in this order, Case No. 24-3785 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED 27 COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the 1 replaces the previous complaints. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 || Accordingly, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present 3 and all of the defendants he wishes to sue, and may not incorporate material from the prior 4 || complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the 5 time provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. The Clerk 6 || shall include two copies of the court’s complaint form with a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: 8/19/2024 1 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 0 United States District Judge 11 12 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10639208. Public record. Not legal advice.