Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02562/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02562-3/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 

DENNIS PETILLO, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-2562 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. After the court screened the original 

complaint and found it did not state any viable claims for relief, plaintiff was given an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has now filed a first amended 

complaint. ECF No. 14. 

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). A 

claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 

an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. 

at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an 

arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 2:24-cv-02562-DC-AC Document 16 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[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). A claim upon which the 

court can grant relief has facial plausibility. 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When 

considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Factual Allegations of the First Amended Complaint 

 The first amended complaint, like the original, is largely unintelligible. It appears to 

allege that plaintiff is being tortured, is the victim of a plot to kill him, and suffers from 

unspecified medical conditions which are not being treated. ECF No. 14 at 3-4. Plaintiff 

identifies the Department of Health, Warden Anderson, Chief of Medical Sahota, and Dr. Vahiah 

as defendants. Id. at 2. Defendants Sahota and Anderson appear to have been involved with 

grievances filed by plaintiff and, though it is unclear, defendant Vahiah, a pulmonologist at 

Highland Hospital, appears to have allegedly refused to treat plaintiff as part of a plot to kill him. 

Id. at 4. Plaintiff attaches copies of grievances indicating that he was being denied an oxygen 

tank even though he was having trouble breathing. Id. at 19-25. 

III. Failure to State a Claim 

Having conducted the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the 

complaint does not state any valid claims for relief. Once again, plaintiff has named the state 

health department, despite being advised that it is not a proper defendant and is immune from 

suit. See ECF No. 11 at 2-3. With respect to the individual defendants, plaintiff has made only 

vague allegations that Anderson and Sahota were somehow involved in grievances, though he 

does not explain what they did or what the grievances were about, and there are no facts 

Case 2:24-cv-02562-DC-AC Document 16 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

regarding what treatment Vahiah refused to provide. In screening the original complaint, the 

court noted that plaintiff could potentially state a claim regarding the denial of an oxygen tank, 

but the amended complaint does not make any allegations related to this denial. While plaintiff 

attaches grievances related to the alleged denial of an oxygen tank, none of them identifies any 

conduct by the named defendants. See ECF No. 14 at 19-25. The remainder of the complaint 

that is decipherable either recites legal standards or is, once again, fantastical and clearly baseless. 

See id. at 3-4, 7 (referencing terrorist threats, plots to kill plaintiff, exorcists, and stating CDCR 

staff are possessed by demons and “not only faceless but soulless” with “rotting hands”). 

IV. No Leave to Amend 

Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 

could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 

cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the first amended complaint fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to 

amend the complaint and advised what kind of information he needed to provide. Despite 

instructions regarding what kind of information needed to be provided and the necessity of 

specifying what each defendant did, plaintiff has failed to provide the necessary information. 

Although plaintiff has attached grievances related to the denial of an oxygen tank—the one 

potentially cognizable claim in the original complaint—they do not allege conduct by any named 

defendant and the complaint is devoid of any facts related to the denial or defendants’ conduct in 

general. Given the lack of additional facts provided by plaintiff, as well as the fantastical nature 

of the remainder of the complaint, it does not appear that further amendment would result in a 

cognizable claim. As a result, leave to amend would be futile and the complaint should be 

dismissed without leave to amend. 

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

It is being recommended that your complaint be dismissed without leave to amend 

Case 2:24-cv-02562-DC-AC Document 16 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

because you have not provided any additional information regarding the alleged denial of an 

oxygen tank or how defendants were involved in that denial. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 

shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the first amended complaint be dismissed 

without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 20, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-02562-DC-AC Document 16 Filed 12/23/24 Page 4 of 4