Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00163/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00163-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT S. AZEVEDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE

SERVICES EMPLOYEES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00163-SKO (PC)

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

First Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Robert S. Azevedo, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 30, 2015. The Court is required to 

screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 legally “frivolous or 

malicious,” that 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)(1), (2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:15-cv-00163-SAB Document 7 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 5
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

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.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison-Sacramento. The event at issue 

in this action occurred at California State Prison-Corcoran in 2013. Plaintiff brings this action for 

monetary damages against Doctor R. Gill, T. Macias, K. Aye, O. Beregovskaya, E. Clark, J. 

Wang, J. Kim, C. McCabe, J. Moon, H. Nguyen, P. Rouch, J. Yu, J. Sao, C. Sisodia, W. Ulit, 

Licensed Vocational Nurse Hunington, and Registered Nurse Barrera. 

Plaintiff alleges that he had surgery on July 11, 2013, and on July 13, 2013, he was placed 

in a dirty cell. Plaintiff was subsequently readmitted to San Joaquin Community Hospital and 

received intravenous antibiotics. The week before his hospital readmission, the wound from his 

six surgical staples was draining profusely and he received no follow-up treatment for the wound, 

Case 1:15-cv-00163-SAB Document 7 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 5
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

which was infected. Plaintiff was finally seen by a physician when he collapsed from nerve 

obstruction caused by swelling of his infected wound.

B. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely 

provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. Nevada ex rel. 

Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 

393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, Plaintiff 

must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each 

defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t 

of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-

08 (9th Cir. 2011). 

For Eighth Amendment claims arising out of medical care in prison, 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 v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett v. Penner, 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 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) 

(citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

An infected wound of the magnitude described by Plaintiff constitutes a serious medical 

need. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). However, 

Case 1:15-cv-00163-SAB Document 7 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to demonstrate that any of the named defendants acted with deliberate 

indifference toward his serious medical needs. Subjective deliberate indifference involves two 

parts. Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1078. Plaintiff must demonstrate first that the risk was obvious or 

provide other circumstantial evidence that Defendants were aware of the substantial risk to his

health, and second that there was no reasonable justification for exposing him to that risk. Id.

(citing Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010)) (quotation marks omitted). There 

must be some causal connection between the actions or omissions of each named defendant and 

the violation at issue; liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-

16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, 

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a claim that the seventeen named 

defendants knowingly disregarded a serious risk of harm to his health, and he therefore fails to 

state claim under section 1983. 

III. Conclusion and Order

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

1983. Plaintiff has not previously been provided with notice of the deficiencies in his claims and 

the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he believes, 

in good faith, he can cure the identified deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th 

Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130; Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If 

Plaintiff amends, he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under section 1983, 

it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere 

respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. Although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Case 1:15-cv-00163-SAB Document 7 Filed 09/24/15 Page 4 of 5
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

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey, 693 F.3d at 907

n.1, and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00163-SAB Document 7 Filed 09/24/15 Page 5 of 5