Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01962/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01962-3/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 

BENJAMIN F. ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GABRIEL WILLIAMS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-1962 WBS SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set 

forth below, this court finds plaintiff states some cognizable claims against defendants Williams 

and Petersen, but states no other cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff will be given the choice of 

proceeding immediately on the claims found cognizable, and dismissing the other claims and 

defendants, or amending the complaint. 

SCREENING 

I. Legal Standards 

As described in the court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen 

complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 

U.S.C. §1983. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis 

for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 10
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 

Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 

defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 

(1978). Plaintiff may demonstrate that connection by alleging facts showing: (1) a defendant’s 

“personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation,” or (2) that a defendant set “in motion a 

series of acts by others” or “knowingly refus[ed] to terminate a series of acts by others, which 

[the defendant] knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict a 

constitutional injury.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). A court shall dismiss a complaint if it “fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1). 

II. Discussion 

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) 

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). He complains of 

conduct that occurred there in 2022 and 2023. Plaintiff identifies three defendants: (1) Gabriel 

Williams, M.D.; (2) Associate Warden/ADA Coordinator Kim Petersen; and (3) the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff states that he is no longer 

seeking relief against previously-named defendant Paez. 

Plaintiff alleges the following: He is a “T-4 Spastic Paraplegia,” which limits his major 

life activities. He requires a wheelchair capable of “having every conceivable angle and 

dimension change.” In February 2022, he was using the custom, personal wheelchair he had been 

using since 2003. Because the wheelchair was not safe and did not provide proper support, 

plaintiff’s primary care provider referred him to defendant Williams, a physiatrist, to be measured 

for a new wheelchair with an 18 inch width. (ECF No. 12 at 12.) 

On April 27, 2022, when he had not been seen by defendant Williams, plaintiff submitted 

an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) request form regarding the appointment. Defendant 

Petersen responded to the request but “failed to fully and properly address” it by providing 

plaintiff with a loaner wheelchair. (ECF No. 12 at 12.) Plaintiff also alleges Petersen does 

monthly inspections of wheelchairs and upon “inspecting and logging-in the Finding and 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 10
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 

Recommendation means that Petersen was undoubtedly aware” of plaintiff’s need for a new 

wheelchair. (Id. at 14.) 

Plaintiff was seen by Williams on May 17, 2022. Williams gave plaintiff a form showing 

that the request for a new wheelchair had been approved. Plaintiff asked Williams for a loaner 

wheelchair similar to the custom chair he was then using. Despite knowing that plaintiff had 

experienced several falls due to his unsafe wheelchair, Williams failed to provide him with a 

loaner. (ECF No. 12 at 13.) 

At an appointment in August 2022, Williams told plaintiff he was not qualified to take 

measurements for a wheelchair. He referred plaintiff for a medical consult with an outside 

orthopedist regarding the lumbar support plaintiff requires in a wheelchair. After seeing plaintiff, 

in September 2022 the orthopedist recommended plaintiff be provided a new, specialized 

wheelchair. (ECF No. 12 at 13-14.) 

At an October 12, 2022 appointment with Williams, plaintiff learned that the prison had 

not ordered the new wheelchair. That same day, plaintiff submitted a healthcare grievance asking 

why the new wheelchair had not been ordered. In December 2022, plaintiff received a response 

telling him that there were vendor issues and that he would be seen by Williams when the new 

wheelchair came in. (ECF No. 12 at 14.) 

On January 16, 2023, plaintiff was still using his old wheelchair and fell. A duty nurse 

emailed defendant Williams after the fall, but plaintiff received no response. Defendant Petersen 

also failed to respond to plaintiff’s verbal requests for a loaner wheelchair during this time. (ECF 

No. 12 at 14-15.) 

At a January 30, 2023 appointment with defendant Williams, Williams indicated his 

“dislike” that plaintiff had submitted a grievance about the wheelchair. Williams then attempted 

to “force” plaintiff to accept a standard wheelchair in retaliation for submitting the grievance. 

Williams did not provide plaintiff with a loaner wheelchair. (ECF No. 12 at 15.) 

At a July 5, 2023 appointment with Williams, Williams told plaintiff he would see a 

Seating Therapist Specialist to be fitted for a new wheelchair. Again plaintiff requested, and was 

not given, a loaner wheelchair. Plaintiff submitted a reasonable accommodations form stating 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 10
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 was being denied prison services by not having a usable wheelchair. The form was 

addressed by “RAP” but plaintiff received no response. Defendants Williams and Petersen are 

members of RAP. (ECF No. 12 at 16.) 

Plaintiff received a loaner wheelchair on August 22, 2023. However, it was heavier and 

“caused plaintiff extreme pain and discomfort to his upper extremities.” (ECF No. 12 at 16.) 

Plaintiff states that after the court issued its original screening order, Williams told 

plaintiff that because plaintiff was suing him, he was going to terminate the order for a new 

wheelchair. (ECF No. 12 at 16-17.) As of the date of filing his first amended complaint, plaintiff 

had not received a new wheelchair. (Id. at 19.) 

Plaintiff states that CHCF has a history of failing to comply with the ADA by failing to 

provide accessible wheelchairs, walkers, and other durable medical equipment in a timely 

manner. (ECF No. 12 at 17.) Plaintiff then goes into some detail about investigations of CHCF 

and the experiences of other inmates. (Id. at 17-19.) 

Plaintiff alleges that as a result of defendants’ actions, he has suffered severe physical 

pain, mental and emotional suffering, exacerbation of his PTSD, and sleeplessness. (ECF No. 12 

at 19, 27 .) 

B. Plaintiff States Some Cognizable Claims for Relief 

1. Defendant Williams 

On screening plaintiff’s original complaint, this court found plaintiff stated a cognizable 

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim and a cognizable state law negligence claim 

against defendant Williams.1 (ECF No. 7 at 7, 11.) Plaintiff has again stated sufficient Eighth 

Amendment and negligence claims against defendant Williams. In addition, plaintiff has 

adequately alleged that Williams took adverse action against plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff 

filing a grievance and this lawsuit against Williams. This court further finds plaintiff has alleged 

an arguably sufficient claim that Williams intentionally inflicted emotional distress, particularly 

//// 

1

 In the first screening order, this court set out the legal standards for each claim plaintiff 

attempts to raise. (ECF No. 7 at 6-12.) Those standards will not be repeated here. 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 10
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 

when he told plaintiff he would cancel the wheelchair order because plaintiff had filed this 

lawsuit. 

In the original screening order, this court found plaintiff failed to state claims under the 

ADA or the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”) because plaintiff made only conclusory allegations 

regarding his inability to access prison services as a result of the lack of a usable wheelchair. In 

addition, this court found plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that programs at CHCF are 

federally funded, as required for a claim under the RA. Plaintiff has now minimally met that 

second requirement by alleging CDCR receives federal funding “sufficient to invoke the 

coverage” of the RA. (ECF No. 12 at 24.) Plaintiff has also provided more information about his 

inability to access services. Plaintiff states that he had to lay in bed due to the pain he 

experienced in trying to operate his wheelchair. As a result, plaintiff was unable to attend 

educational and group activities. (Id. at 32.) This court finds these allegations minimally 

sufficient to allege ADA and RA claims against defendant Williams in his official capacity. 

Finally, plaintiff states that he is bringing claims under California’s Tom Bane Civil 

Rights Act, California Civil Code §52.1, and the California Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”), 

California Civil Code §54, et seq. (ECF No. 12 at 31-35.) “The elements of a Bane Act claim are 

essentially identical to the elements of a § 1983 claim, with the added requirement that the 

government official had a ‘specific intent to violate’ a constitutional right.” Hughes v. Rodriguez, 

31 F.4th 1211, 1224 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1043 

(9th Cir. 2018)). For screening purposes, this court finds plaintiff has minimally alleged that 

defendant Williams violated his rights under the Bane Act. Because a DPA claim may be 

premised on an ADA violation, plaintiff also states a claim under the DPA. See Cal. Civ. Code § 

54 (“A violation of the right of an individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . 

. also constitutes a violation of this section.”); Roe v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 24-CV01562-JST, 2024 WL 4505475, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2024). 

2. Defendant Petersen 

Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment claim against defendant 

Petersen. Plaintiff shows that Petersen was aware of plaintiff’s need for a new wheelchair but 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 10
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 

failed to provide plaintiff with either a loaner wheelchair in a timely manner or a replacement 

wheelchair over an extended period of time. These allegations are also sufficient to state a claim 

that Petersen was deliberately indifferent. For the reasons stated above with respect to defendant 

Williams, plaintiff has also stated claims against Petersen under the ADA, RA, Bane Act, and 

DPA. 

However, plaintiff’s allegations again are insufficient to state a claim that Petersen 

intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Plaintiff does not show Petersen acted outrageously or 

that she recklessly disregarded the probability that her actions could cause plaintiff severe 

emotional suffering. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting out 

elements of a state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress). 

3. Defendant CDCR 

Plaintiff added CDCR as a defendant to this action. Institutional defendants, like CDCR, 

are generally not proper defendants in a civil rights damages action because they are not 

“persons” within the meaning of §1983 and are generally immune from suit under the Eleventh 

Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978). However, in a civil rights action 

for prospective injunctive relief, the Secretary of CDCR, named in his official capacity, may be 

an appropriate defendant. See,e.g., Lacano Investments, LLC v. Balash, 765 F.3d 1068, 1072 

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). Because plaintiff does not seek 

injunctive relief, CDCR is not an appropriate defendant. 

CONCLUSION 

This court finds above that plaintiff states potentially cognizable claims against defendant 

Williams for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, 

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, for negligence, for intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, and for violations of the ADA, RA, Bane Act, and DPA. This court further 

finds plaintiff states potentially cognizable claims against defendant Petersen under the Eighth 

Amendment, for negligence, and for violations of the ADA, RA, Bane Act, and DPA. However, 

plaintiff fails to state any other cognizable claims for relief. Plaintiff will again be given the 

choice of proceeding immediately on his claims found potentially cognizable or filing a second 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 6 of 10
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 

amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed immediately on the claims found potentially 

cognizable, he will dismiss all other claims and defendants. 

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must address the 

problems with his first amended complaint that are explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in 

an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took 

that violated his legal rights. The court is not required to review exhibits to determine what 

plaintiff’s allegations are as to each named defendant. If plaintiff wishes to add a claim, he must 

include it in the body of the complaint. The allegations must be set forth in the amended 

complaint so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting. That said, plaintiff 

need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. Rather, plaintiff should provide a 

short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Starr, 652 F.3d at 1207-08 (a person deprives another of a constitutional right if that person was 

personally involved in the deprivation, set in motion acts by others that resulted in the 

deprivation, or refused to terminate acts by others that resulted in the deprivation). “Vague 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). 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate brevity. Plaintiff’s claims must be set 

forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 

534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which 

was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. However, “a 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 7 of 10
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 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter ... to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is 

plausible when the plaintiff includes facts “that allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 

has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff has stated potentially cognizable claims against defendants Williams and 

Petersen for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, negligence, and violations of the ADA, RA, Banes Act, and DPA. In addition, 

plaintiff has stated potentially cognizable claims for retaliation in violation of the First 

Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Williams. 

2. Plaintiff’s other claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 

3. Plaintiff may choose to proceed on his cognizable claims set out above or he may 

choose to file a second amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to proceed on his cognizable 

claims in the first amended complaint, he shall voluntarily dismiss all other claims and 

defendants. 

4. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall fill out and return the 

attached form indicating how he would like to proceed in this action. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 8 of 10
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 

9 

5. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: December 11, 2024 

 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 9 of 10
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 

BENJAMIN F. ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GABRIEL WILLIAMS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-1962 WBS SCR P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment, negligence, ADA, 

RA, Banes Act, and DPA claims against defendants Williams and Peterson and on his 

First Amendment claim and claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against 

defendant Williams. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the 

first amended complaint he is voluntarily dismissing all other claims and defendants. 

_____ Plaintiff wants to file a second amended complaint. 

DATED:____________________ 

 ____________________________________ 

 Benjamin F. Ellis, Plaintiff 

Case 2:23-cv-01962-WBS-SCR Document 13 Filed 12/11/24 Page 10 of 10