Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01936/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01936-1/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTIAN GUZMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. JONES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1936 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). ECF No. 3. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 1 of 9
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 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2). 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 2 of 9
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 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 

III. Complaint 

 The complaint alleges that defendants Jones, Levy, Murray, and Spearman, plus one Doe 

defendant, violated plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges 

that on August 5, 2018, he submitted a health care services request because he was experiencing 

“swelling (edema) on legs, discomfort and pain.” Id. at 11. The next day he was seen by Jones, 

who said he must have twisted his ankle in his sleep. Id. She told plaintiff that she would call 

him back in a couple of days for a follow up, though she never did, and sent him back to his 

housing unit without letting him see a doctor. Id. 

 On September 5, 2018, plaintiff submitted another health care request in which he 

complained of painful swelling in his hand. Id. The following day he was seen by defendant 

Levy, who told him the swelling would go away on its own. Id. Plaintiff told her that he had 

been seen thirty days earlier about the swelling in his legs, which was getting progressively 

worse, and Levy said that she would look into it and reschedule him but failed to do so. Id. at 11-

12. 

 On September 18, 2018, plaintiff submitted another health care request where he 

complained about shortness of breath, low energy, stomach pain, and not being able to keep any 

food or liquid down. Id. at 12. The following day, plaintiff was seen by defendant Jane Doe. Id. 

During the appointment, plaintiff told Doe that he had not had any follow ups for the swelling in 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 3 of 9
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 

4 

his legs, which was still getting worse. Id. Doe refused to let plaintiff see a doctor and said she 

would make sure he got called back. Id. 

 On September 25, 2018, plaintiff put in an emergency request for health care due to 

extreme swelling in both legs that had traveled up to his testicles. Id. at 12-13. The same day he 

was seen by defendant Levy and told her that he wanted to see a doctor and was tired of being 

given the run around. Id. at 13. He was then seen by a doctor and was eventually sent to the 

emergency room for additional testing. Id. After conducting several tests, the hospital 

determined that plaintiff was in congestive heart failure and needed to be transferred to another 

hospital with a higher level of care. Id. at 14. After plaintiff was transferred to the other hospital, 

he was informed that he had a blood infection that had destroyed his aorta and damaged his mitral 

valve because it had gone untreated for so long. Id. After several complications and setbacks, 

plaintiff eventually underwent emergency open-heart surgery where his aorta was replaced on 

October 18, 2018. Id. at 15. During a follow up to the surgery it was discovered that plaintiff’ 

mitral valve is “leaking anywhere from low-to moderate,” but that no intervention was 

recommended at this time due to all the complications he had suffered. Id. at 16. 

IV. Deliberate Indifference 

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate 

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This requires plaintiff 

to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and 

(2) “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Id. (some internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

Deliberate indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 

(9th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

A. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant Levy and the Doe defendant failed to let him see a 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 4 of 9
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 

5 

doctor or schedule him for a follow-up appointment despite his clearly worsening edema are 

sufficient to state claims for relief and will require a response. However, due to the impossibility 

of serving an unknown individual, the court will not order service on the Doe defendant until 

plaintiff has identified her and filed either an amended complaint that names the defendant or a 

motion to substitute a named defendant for the Doe defendant. Plaintiff shall promptly seek such 

information through the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq., or 

other means available to plaintiff.1 If access to the required information is denied or 

unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention. 

B. Failure to State a Claim 

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Jones are insufficient to state a claim for relief 

because they show that she believed that plaintiff had twisted his ankle and did not need to see a 

doctor. Even though Jones failed to schedule plaintiff for a follow-up appointment, the facts are 

not sufficient to show that she would be aware that failing to do so would put plaintiff’s health at 

excessive risk. 

Plaintiff also fails to state any claims against defendants Murray and Spearman, who he 

alleges failed to properly train and supervise their subordinates. ECF No. 1 at 8-9. “There is no 

respondeat superior liability under section 1983,” Taylor v List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 

1989) (citation omitted), and the facts of the complaint do not demonstrate pervasive failures that 

would have notified these defendants of a need to further train or supervise their subordinates, see 

Flores v. County of Los Angeles, 758 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014) (pattern of similar 

violations ordinarily necessary to state a claim). 

V. Leave to Amend 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the complaint does not state 

cognizable claims against defendants Jones, Murray, or Spearman. However, it appears that 

plaintiff may be able to allege facts to remedy this and he will be given the opportunity to amend 

the complaint if he desires. 

1

 Plaintiff may be able to obtain the information he through the grievance system or other 

administrative process. 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 5 of 9
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 

6 

 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Levy on his deliberate indifference 

claim or he may delay serving any defendant and amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff will be required to complete and return the attached notice advising the court how 

he wishes to proceed. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he will be given thirty days to 

file an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to proceed on his claims against defendant Levy and 

the Doe defendant without amending the complaint, the court will proceed to serve the complaint. 

A decision to go forward without amending the complaint will be considered a voluntarily 

dismissal without prejudice of all claims against defendants Jones, Murray, and Spearman. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 

There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or 

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 

in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, 

the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended 

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. 

//// 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 6 of 9
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 

7 

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the 

entire filing fee immediately. 

 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 

not. You have alleged enough facts to state claims against defendant Levy and the Doe 

defendant. However, you have not alleged enough facts to show that defendant Jones was aware 

of an excessive risk to your health and ignored it or that there was a pattern of similar violations 

that would have put defendants Murray and Spearman on notice that their subordinates were not 

properly trained or supervised. 

You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your claims 

against defendant Levy and the Doe defendant and voluntarily dismiss the other claims or (2) try 

to amend the complaint. If you want to go forward without amending the complaint, you will be 

voluntarily dismissing without prejudice all of your claims against defendants Murray and 

Spearman. If you choose to amend your complaint, the amended complaint must include all of 

the claims you want to make, including the ones that have already been found to state a claim, 

because the court will not look at the claims or information in the original complaint. Any claims 

or information not in the amended complaint will not be considered. You must complete the 

attached notification showing what you want to do and return it to the court. Once the court 

receives the notice, it will issue an order telling you what you need to do next (i.e. file an 

amended complaint or wait for defendants to be served). 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED. 

 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith. 

//// 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 7 of 9
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 

8 

 3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Jones, Murray, and Spearman do not state claims 

for which relief can be granted. 

 4. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his deliberate indifference claims 

against defendant Levy and the Doe defendant as set forth above, or to amend the complaint. 

 5. Within fourteen days of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or 

whether he wants to file a first amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court 

will assume that he is choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend 

dismissal without prejudice of all claims against defendants Jones, Murray, and Spearman. 

DATED: August 3, 2021 

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 8 of 9
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTIAN GUZMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. JONES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:20-cv-1936 AC P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his deliberate indifference claims against 

defendant Levy and the Doe defendant without amending the complaint. Plaintiff 

understands that by going forward without amending the complaint he is voluntarily 

dismissing without prejudice all of his claims against defendants Jones, Murray, and 

Spearman pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 Christian Guzman 

 Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:20-cv-01936-DAD-AC Document 8 Filed 08/03/21 Page 9 of 9