Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02059/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02059-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

3:15-cv-02059-AJB (BGS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAUL ARELLANO, 

CDCR #g-57782, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

SEDIGHI; R. WALKER; S. ROBERTS; J. 

LEWIS; M. GLYNN; A. BUSALACCHI 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-02059-AJB (BGS) 

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS 

FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 

AND FOR SEEKING MONEY 

DAMAGES AGAINST IMMUNE 

DEFENDANTS; 

AND 

(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 

EFFECT SERVICE OF SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT UPON 

DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) AND 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

I. Procedural History 

On September 15, 2015, Raul Arellano (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at 

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego, California, and 

proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(Doc. No. 1). On February 1, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In 

Case 3:15-cv-02059-AJB-BGS Document 11 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

3:15-cv-02059-AJB (BGS) 

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

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) but sua sponte dismissed his 

Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. No. 3.) 

After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

(Doc. No. 7.) The Court, once again, conducted the required screening and dismissed 

Plaintiff’s FAC for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On 

October 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 

10.) 

II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) 

A. Standard of Review 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to review 

complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are 

“incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 

delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, 

pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte 

dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 

claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)). 

All complaints 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 (2009) 

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Determining 

whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that 

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id.

The “mere possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. 

Case 3:15-cv-02059-AJB-BGS Document 11 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

3:15-cv-02059-AJB (BGS) 

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

Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]hen 

determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations 

of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff.”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 

§ 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In 

addition, the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil 

rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of 

any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. 

Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

B. Dismissed Defendants

 When the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC, he was informed that any “Defendants 

not named and any claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be considered 

waived.” See Aug. 19, 2016 Order, Doc. No. 8 at 8-9, citing Hal Roach Studios, Inc., v. 

Richard Feiner & Co., Inc, 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989). In his SAC, Plaintiff no 

longer names Daniel Paramo and therefore, this Defendant is DISMISSED from this 

action. 

 While Plaintiff names the “California Correctional Health Care Services” as a 

Defendant, he fails to allege any facts specific to what this Defendant is alleged to have 

done. Regardless, Plaintiff cannot bring an action for money damages against this 

Defendant and the claims as to this Defendant must be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 

both 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b) for failing to state a claim and for seeking 

damages against a defendant who is immune. The State of California’s Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation and any state prison, correctional agency, sub-division, or 

department under its jurisdiction, are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Hale v. 

State of Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a state department 

Case 3:15-cv-02059-AJB-BGS Document 11 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

3:15-cv-02059-AJB (BGS) 

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

of corrections is an arm of the state, and thus, not a “person” within the meaning of 

§ 1983). And if by naming an agency within the CDCR as a party, Plaintiff really seeks 

to sue the State of California itself, his claims are clearly barred by the Eleventh 

Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (“There can 

be no doubt . . . that [a] suit against the State and its Board of Corrections is barred by the 

Eleventh Amendment, unless [the State] has consented to the filing of such a suit.”). 

 Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the California 

Correctional Health Care Services Company, this Defendant is dismissed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 

 C. Remaining Defendants 

Based on the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s SAC, the Court now finds 

Plaintiff’s SAC is sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the sua 

sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) as to the remaining 

Defendants. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012).1 

 Accordingly, the Court will direct U.S. Marshal service on Plaintiff’s behalf. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and 

perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that 

service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is 

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 

III. Conclusion and Order

 Good cause appearing, the Court: 

 1. DISMISSES Defendants Paramo and California Correctional Health Care 

Services Company for failing to state a claim and for seeking monetary damages against 

an immune defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (iii) and 28 U.S.C. 

                                                                

1 Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 

Case 3:15-cv-02059-AJB-BGS Document 11 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

3:15-cv-02059-AJB (BGS) 

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

§ 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 

2. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10) upon Defendants and forward it to Plaintiff along 

with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Court 

DIRECTS the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Court’s February 1, 

2016 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. 3), a certified 

copy of his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 10), and the summons so that he may 

serve Defendants. Once he receives this “IFP Package,” the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to 

complete the USM Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return 

them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in 

the letter accompanying his IFP package. 

 3. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal, upon receipt of Plaintiff’s completed USM 

Form 285s, to timely serve a copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and summons 

upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff. All costs of that service will be advanced 

by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3). 

 4. ORDERS Defendants, once they have been served, to reply to Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant 

may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a 

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,” 

once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 

and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the 

pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” the 

defendant is required to respond). 

 5. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ 

counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 

Court’s consideration. Plaintiff must include with every original document he seeks to file 

Case 3:15-cv-02059-AJB-BGS Document 11 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6 

3:15-cv-02059-AJB (BGS) 

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

with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct 

copy of that document has been was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and 

the date of that service. 

Any document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk 

or which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants may be disregarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-02059-AJB-BGS Document 11 Filed 02/03/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6