Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01130/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01130-0/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

JESUS FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMILEY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01130-SKO (PC)

SECOND SCREENING ORDER 

DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 10)

Second Screening Order

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Jesus Flores, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities 

Act), and California law on July 22, 2013. On May 9, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 

complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state any claims. On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

an amended complaint alleging a claim under section 1983 for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.1

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in 

part, if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. '

 

1

Plaintiff expressly abandoned his ADA claim and he neither re-alleged his negligence claim nor alleged compliance 

with the Government Claims Act, which prohibits him from pursuing a negligence claim under California law. Shirk 

v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 208-09 (Cal. 2007).

Case 1:13-cv-01130-SKO Document 11 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff=s claims must be facially plausible to 

survive screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation 

marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer 

possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability 

falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State 

Prison in Corcoran, California, brings this action against A. F. Alphonso, M.D., for violating his 

rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff alleges that in 

2009, he suffered a massive stroke which left him with a debilitating esophageal disorder called 

dysphagia. Plaintiff’s condition makes it extremely difficult for him to swallow food, drink liquid, 

or talk, and he carries around a pen and paper in order to communicate. Plaintiff also has 

difficulty breathing, especially at night; he awakens three to four times a night choking, coughing, 

and gasping for air; and it hurts even attempting to talk. 

Case 1:13-cv-01130-SKO Document 11 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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 alleges that although he was sent for an exam which revealed no throat 

obstructions, that is not his medical issue and despite the seriousness of his condition, Defendant 

Alphonso, his primary care provider, refuses to accommodate his request for a second opinion. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Alphonso is rude and disrespectful, and he tells Plaintiff there is 

nothing further he can do. Plaintiff alleges that “[t]o add insult to injury, he would order 

[Plaintiff] Tylenol, which does absolutely nothing to ease [the] suffering.” (Amend. Comp., pp. 

10-11.) 

B. Medical Care Claim

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

2012) ), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

2014); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122; Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff 

“must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could 

result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that 

“the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 

(citing Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a 

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm 

caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The 

requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of 

due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 

1122. 

Plaintiff’s allegations support the existence of a serious medical need arising out of his 

post-stroke esophageal dysphagia. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). 

However, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is devoid of any specific facts which support his claim 

that Defendant Alphonso is acting with deliberate indifference to his condition.

2

 Plaintiff’s belief 

 

2

Plaintiff’s original complaint was supported by exhibits, which Plaintiff omitted in his amended complaint. As noted 

by the Court in its first screening order, these exhibits belie a claim that Plaintiff’s medical needs are being 

disregarded. See Air Aromatics, LLC v. Opinion Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 744 F.3d 595, 600 (9th 

Case 1:13-cv-01130-SKO Document 11 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 4
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

that he is entitled to a second opinion and his disagreement with Defendant’s decision to deny that 

request do not support a claim under section 1983. Snow, 681 F.3d at 987; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at

1122-23.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 

section 1983. Plaintiff was previously given leave to amend to cure the deficiencies but he was 

unable to do so, and based on the nature of the deficiencies, further leave to amend is not 

warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 

1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall enter judgment; and

3. The dismissal of this action qualifies as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. 

Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Cir. 2014) (“A party cannot amend pleadings to ‘directly contradict an earlier assertion made in the same 

proceeding.’”) (quoting Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 1990)). The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s 

frustration with his significant medical issues, but his desire for a second opinion and his bare assertion that Defendant 

is acting with deliberate indifference do not support a claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Case 1:13-cv-01130-SKO Document 11 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 4