Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00797/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00797-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVARO QUEZADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00797-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 23)

21-DAY DEADLINE

On November 18, 2019, the Court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this 

action for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations on January 10, 2020. (Doc. 26.)

In his objections, Plaintiff provides additional factual allegations related to his deliberate 

indifference and retaliation claims. For example, he alleges that a defendant had firsthand 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical condition or disability, given that he observed Plaintiff 

struggling to walk and being assisted by his cellmate on a daily basis. (Id. at 19.) This allegation, 

coupled with Plaintiff’s fall on the morning of June 28, 2017, may show that the defendant was 

aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff when he forced him to walk down the stairs

during the afternoon of June 28, 2017. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that, as soon as he transferred to R.J. Donavan Correctional 

Facility, his doctor provided him adequate pain medication and accommodations that were 

Case 1:18-cv-00797-DAD-CDB Document 28 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

repeatedly denied by his doctor at Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran. (Doc. 26 at 4.) 

Though mere differences in medical opinion are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth 

Amendment, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the allegation that Plaintiff 

repeatedly complained to his doctor at SATF that his medication and accommodations were

inadequate, (see Doc. 26 at 4), coupled with the immediate provision of adequate medication and 

accommodations at RJDCF, may show that the SATF doctor was deliberately indifferent to his 

pain or condition.

Plaintiff also alleges that, when he requested to be moved to a lower-tier cell due to his 

condition or disability, a defendant officer moved his cellmate instead, even though the cellmate 

is able-bodied and assisted Plaintiff with his movements (see above). (Id. at 9.) The defendant 

then asserted in a subsequent rules violation report against Plaintiff that no lower-tier bunks were 

available, even though he had just moved Plaintiff’s cellmate to one such bunk. (Id. at 12.) These 

inconsistencies, if true, are evidence of ill-intent.

In addition to providing the factual allegations above, Plaintiff states that the Court did not

screen his claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (See id. at 1.) Under “Claim 

1” of his complaint, Plaintiff states, “Plaintiff will bring two legal claims under the ... 8th 

Amendment cause of actions and a 1st Amendment cause of actions [sic].” (Id. at 6.) Under 

“Claim 2” of his complaint, Plaintiff states, “1st Amendment rights were violated.” (Id. at 22.) 

Based on these statements, the Court found that Plaintiff only raised claims under the First and 

Eighth amendments. However, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff mentions the ADA under 

the “Supporting Facts” of Claim 1. (Doc. 22 at 9, 11, 17.)

For the reasons above, the Court WITHDRAWS its findings and recommendations (Doc. 

23) and ORDERS Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint within 21 days of the date of 

service of this order. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a civil rights 

complaint form. The amended complaint should include the factual allegations listed above and 

must cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s findings and recommendations (Doc. 23).

1

If 

 

1 The Court notes that, even with his additional allegations, Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim of supervisory 

liability against the warden of SATF, as he argues in his objections. (Doc. 26 at 24-25.) Plaintiff’s facts are 

insufficient to show that the warden’s actions or failures to act meet the high legal standard of deliberate indifference, 

Case 1:18-cv-00797-DAD-CDB Document 28 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff wishes to raise an independent claim under the ADA, he must explicitly do so in his 

amended complaint.

As stated in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 19), Plaintiff SHALL LIMIT his complaint 

to 20 pages or less and SHALL NOT include exhibits. In addition, Plaintiff shall provide only 

facts; he should not provide legal arguments. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the 

Court may recommend that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court 

orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004); Johnson

v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978), or that the warden was on actual notice of a pattern or practice of 

constitutional violations, such that his failures to act, train, or discipline constituted approval or acquiescence to such 

practice. See Hunter v. Cty. of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225, 1233 (9th Cir. 2011); Henry v. Cty. of Shasta, 132 F.3d 

512, 519 (9th Cir. 1997), as amended by 137 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 1:18-cv-00797-DAD-CDB Document 28 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 3