Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00815/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00815-2/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

BRAULIO ULISES REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

GISELLE MATTESON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-0815-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER 

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF: 

(1) FILE A SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT; OR

(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE

WISHES TO STAND BY HIS

COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO

DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AND

DEFENDANTS CONSISTENT WITH

THIS ORDER

ECF No. 15

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Braulio Ulises Reyes is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil 

rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 15, is 

before the court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He alleges that two defendants, Francis 

Ko and Martin Kuorston, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to recommend and 

approve surgical repair for his hernia. I find that plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable 

deliberate indifference claim against either defendant.

Case 2:20-cv-00815-JAM-JDP Document 17 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 6
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

SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered hernia pain since 2016. ECF No. 15 at 5. He was 

approved for hernia surgery in July 2018 while housed at San Quentin state prison. Id. at 6. In 

August 2018, prior to surgery, plaintiff was transferred to Solano state prison. Id. at 7. There, he 

met with defendant Ko, a physician. Id. at 8. Ko disagreed with the surgery referral and, instead, 

Case 2:20-cv-00815-JAM-JDP Document 17 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 6
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

issued plaintiff a hernia belt and restricted the amount of weight plaintiff could lift. Id. at 8. 

Plaintiff kept requesting surgery from his medical providers. Id. at 10. In August 2019, 

he convinced a different physician at Solano state prison to reinstate his surgery referral. Id. at 

13. Surgery was denied again, however, by defendant Kuorston—the chief medical executive. 

Id. at 14. Kuorston apparently denied surgery because the physician request lacked 

“documentation of Title 15 Medical Necessity” and there were no “documented objective 

complications.” Id. 

A prisoner must establish two elements to succeed on a claim for medical deliberate 

indifference. First, “the plaintiff must show 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.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Second, “the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need 

was deliberately indifferent.” Id. Negligence is not enough to establish deliberate indifference. 

Id. Neither is a difference of medical opinion. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th 

Cir. 1996). The Ninth Circuit has likened deliberate indifference to “something akin to reckless 

disregard.” Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). 

Plaintiff’s allegations against Ko, taken as true, do not amount to deliberate indifference. 

Nothing in the complaint indicates that Ko’s alternate prescription of a hernia belt and physical 

restrictions was issued in “reckless disregard” of plaintiff’s medical wellbeing rather than with a 

good faith belief that they might prove effective in helping plaintiff’s symptoms. Additionally, a 

different provider subsequently recommended surgery, meaning that Ko’s alternate treatment plan 

amounted only to a delay. Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 

(9th Cir. 1985) (holding that “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim 

of deliberate medical indifference . . . .”).

I also find that the allegations, taken as true, do not show that defendant Kuorston acted 

with deliberate indifference when he denied plaintiff surgery. The complaint says only that he 

rejected surgery because he found a lack of documentation as to both medical necessity and 

objective complications. ECF No. 15 at 14. Plaintiff has not alleged that Kuorston’s denial was 

Case 2:20-cv-00815-JAM-JDP Document 17 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 6
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

pretextual or made in bad faith. He says only that Kuorston denied his surgical referral and that 

doing so amounted to deliberate indifference. Id. The pleading standards for federal complaints 

are not high, but they demand more than legal conclusions. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice.”).

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only 

persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional 

rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff may also include any 

allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form 

the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The amended complaint must contain a 

caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff may not change the 

nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir. 2007). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[The] ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)).

Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should consider whether each of the defendants he names had 

Case 2:20-cv-00815-JAM-JDP Document 17 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 6
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

involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in which 

plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 15) is DISMISSED with leave to amend 

within thirty days of service of this order.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a prisoner complaint form with this order.

3. Failure to file an amended complaint within the deadline or to comply with any 

part of this this order may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2020 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00815-JAM-JDP Document 17 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 6
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

Case 2:20-cv-00815-JAM-JDP Document 17 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 6