Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00030/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00030-1/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RANDY MAESTAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RCCC, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:23-cv-0030 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). ECF No. 6. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

Case 2:23-cv-00030-DAD-AC Document 7 Filed 06/21/23 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 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2). 

II. 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). 

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

“frivolous, malicious, or 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). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

Case 2:23-cv-00030-DAD-AC Document 7 Filed 06/21/23 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 

cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 

III. Complaint 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center (RCCC) violated his 

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to his medical care. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 

alleges that he needed urgent back surgery but was denied “hospital care” and surgery. Id. at 3-5. 

This resulted in him suffering prolonged back pain until he was finally able to get surgery. Id. at 

4-5. His surgeon confirmed that he “should [have] been brought to the hospital right away to 

have surgery.” Id. at 5. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

While “municipalities and other local government units . . . [are] among those persons to 

whom § 1983 applies,” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978), “a municipality 

can be liable under § 1983 only where its policies are the ‘moving force [behind] the 

constitutional violation,’” City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989) (alteration in 

original) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694 and Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 

(1981)). There must be “a direct causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the 

alleged constitutional deprivation.” Id. at 385. Accordingly, because plaintiff fails to state facts 

showing that any RCCC custom or policy caused the denial of medical care, he fails to state a 

claim against defendant RCCC. 

Case 2:23-cv-00030-DAD-AC Document 7 Filed 06/21/23 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 

Moreover, in order to state a claim based on deficient medical care under the Fourteenth 

Amendment,1 plaintiff must allege the following elements: 

(i) the defendant made an intentional decision with respect to the 

conditions under which the plaintiff was confined; (ii) those 

conditions put the plaintiff at substantial risk of suffering serious 

harm; (iii) the defendant did not take reasonable available measures 

to abate that risk, even though a reasonable official in the 

circumstances would have appreciated the high degree of risk 

involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct 

obvious; and (iv) by not taking such measures, the defendant caused 

the plaintiff's injuries. 

Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff’s allegations of pain 

and his surgeon’s alleged assessment that he should have received medical care sooner 

sufficiently show a risk of harm at the screening stage. However, plaintiff does not allege facts 

showing defendant’s policies or practices resulted in or constituted a failure to take reasonable 

available measures to abate that risk. Therefore, he fails to state a claim against RCCC. 

To the extent plaintiff may be attempting to allege that individual medical providers at the 

jail violated his rights by denying him medical care, he fails to identify and name such individuals 

as defendants. 

V. Leave to Amend 

The complaint does not state any cognizable claims for relief and plaintiff will be given an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, 

he must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his 

constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must 

allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. 

Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

1

 Although plaintiff does not specify whether he was a pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner at 

the time of his incarceration at the jail, for screening purpose, the undersigned will assume that 

plaintiff was a pretrial detainee and consider the claims under the less rigorous Fourteenth 

Amendment standard. See Vazquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2020) 

(“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment is more protective than the Eighth Amendment ‘because the 

Fourteenth Amendment prohibits all punishment of pretrial detainees, while the Eighth 

Amendment only prevents the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment of convicted 

prisoners.’” (quoting Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004))). 

Case 2:23-cv-00030-DAD-AC Document 7 Filed 06/21/23 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 

unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed 

deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague 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). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 

in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended 

complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

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

Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. That means you do not have to pay 

the entire filing fee now. You will pay it over time, out of your trust account. 

Your complaint will not be served because the facts you alleged are not enough to state a 

claim. While the facts you state do show that you were at risk of harm, you do not state facts 

showing that the RCCC’s policies or customs were responsible for the violation of your rights. 

To the extent you may be trying to claim that an individual medical provider violated your rights, 

you do not identify as defendants any individuals whose intentional decisions were involved in 

the denial of your surgery.

You may amend your complaint to try to fix these problems. Be sure to provide facts that 

show exactly what each defendant did to violate your rights or to cause a violation of your rights.

If you choose to file a first amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to 

bring. Once an amended complaint is filed, the court will not look at any information in the 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-00030-DAD-AC Document 7 Filed 06/21/23 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 

original complaint. Any claims and information not in the first amended complaint will not 

be considered. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A, and will not be served. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed. 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 

form used in this district. 

DATED: June 20, 2023 

Case 2:23-cv-00030-DAD-AC Document 7 Filed 06/21/23 Page 6 of 6