Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00725-1/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 

STEVEN DEL TORO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VASUKI DARAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0725 AC P 

ORDER 

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

state law and has paid the filing fee. 

I. 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, 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 5 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 7
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 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 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

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). 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 5 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 7
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 

II. Complaint 

The complaint asserts that defendants Daram and Antwong were negligent and violated 

plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. ECF No. 1. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he 

injured his right, middle finger on August 30, 2021, and was sent for x-rays which were taken by 

Antwong the same day. Id. at 6. Between September 1 and October 25, 2021, plaintiff was seen 

multiple times by Daram, who failed to provide any treatment even though plaintiff’s finger was 

very swollen and painful. Id. at 6-7. On October 25, 2021, Daram saw plaintiff for follow-up 

after a visit with a hand surgeon, and issued an urgent referral for hand surgery and a morphine 

prescription for pain. Id. at 7. On November 5, 2021, plaintiff had surgery on his hand and was 

told that because of the delay in getting surgery, he could lose mobility in his right finger. Id. at 

8. Plaintiff asserts that he has in fact suffered permanent damage to his finger in the form of 

extremely limited range of motion and continued pain. Id. 

III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for deliberate indifference against defendant 

Daram. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted) (deliberate 

indifference shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to plaintiff’s pain or medical need 

and harm cause by indifference). 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

A. Defendant Antwong 

Plaintiff’s only allegation against Antwong is that he took plaintiff’s x-ray the same day it 

was ordered. This does not demonstrate that Antwong failed to respond to plaintiff’s serious 

medical need or caused plaintiff harm, and there are no further allegations that would establish 

deliberate indifference. 

B. State Tort Law Claims 

Plaintiff has failed to state claims for negligence because he has not alleged compliance 

with the Government Claims Act. See State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal. 4th 1234, 1240, 

1237 (2004) (for claims against the state, timely presentation of a claim under the Government 

Claims Act is an element of the cause of action and must be pled in the complaint); Cal. Gov’t 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 5 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 7
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 

Code § 900.6 (defining “State” as “the State and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, 

board, commission or agency of the State claims against which are paid by warrants drawn by the 

Controller”). 

V. Leave to Amend 

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

cognizable claims for negligence or any claim against defendant Antwong. 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. Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Daram on 

his Eighth Amendment 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 Eighth Amendment claim against 

defendant Daram without amending the complaint, he will be provided with the forms necessary 

to complete service on the defendant. A decision to go forward without amending the complaint 

will be considered a voluntarily dismissal without prejudice of the negligence claims and all 

claims against defendant Antwong. 

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 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 5 Filed 11/29/22 Page 4 of 7
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 

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. 

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

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

not. You have stated a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment against 

defendant Daram. You have not stated any claims for negligence because you have not alleged 

that you filed a notice of claim as required by the Government Claims Act. You also have not 

stated any claims for deliberate indifference against Antwong because you have not alleged facts 

showing that he knew of and ignored an excessive risk to your health or safety. 

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

Amendment claim against Daram 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 your negligence claims all claims against Antwong. If you choose 

to file a first amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to bring. Once an amended 

complaint is filed, the court will not look at any information in the original complaint. Any 

claims and information not in the first 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 serve defendant). 

CONCLUSION 

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

1. Plaintiff’s negligence claims and allegations against defendant Antwong do not state 

claims for which relief can be granted. 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 5 Filed 11/29/22 Page 5 of 7
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 

2. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claim 

against defendant Daram as set forth in Section III above, or to amend the complaint. 

3. 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 the negligence claims and all claims against defendant Antwong. 

DATED: November 28, 2022 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 5 Filed 11/29/22 Page 6 of 7
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 

STEVEN DEL TORO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VASUKI DARAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0725 AC P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendant Daram without amending the complaint. Plaintiff understands that by going 

forward without amending the complaint he is voluntarily dismissing without prejudice 

his negligence claims and all claims against defendant Antwong pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 Steven Del Toro 

 Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 5 Filed 11/29/22 Page 7 of 7