Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01393/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01393-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAZ NELSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01393 DLB PC

ORDER DISMSSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Chaz Nelson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prison proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on September 14, 2015. Pursuant to Court order, 

he filed a First Amended Complaint on March 18, 2016. He names John Doe as the sole Defendant.1

LEGAL STANDARD

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 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. 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on November 19, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/18/16 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

§ 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). 

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient 

to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 

F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California State Prison in Lancaster, California. 

He alleges that he became unexpectedly sick, and when he woke up, he was sweating and 

could barely breathe. He was rushed to medical, where he was told that his temperature was 105 

degrees. Plaintiff was then sent out to San Joaquin Memorial Hospital, where he had blood tests and 

other diagnostic testing performed.

He was diagnosed with Valley Fever on August 28, 2009.

“Later on down the line,” Plaintiff was hospitalized because his arteries were being eaten by 

the fungus. ECF No. 17, at 4. He had some form of surgery in 2013, while at Mercy Hospital.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments.

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/18/16 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

C. ANALYSIS

1. Linkage

As explained above, 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 v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim, Plaintiff must 

demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th 

Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. 

Here, Plaintiff names John Doe as the sole Defendant. He does not, however, include 

Defendant Doe in the factual allegations, and he therefore fails to explain how Defendant Doe was 

involved in the alleged deprivation of his rights. 

The Court explained this deficiency in the prior screening order, but Plaintiff has not 

corrected it. His allegations continue to be vague, and do not sufficiently connect any individual 

with the actions complained of. Although Plaintiff attaches his appeals as exhibits, the Court will 

not attempt to guess Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff therefore fails to link any Defendant with specific acts and fails to state a claim.

2. Eighth Amendment

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference 

to an inmate’s serious medical needs. 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); 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 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, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful 

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/18/16 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

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, 681 F.3d 

at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Plaintiff’s prior complaint alleged that Defendants placed him in a prison where Valley Fever 

is endemic. He now omits this claim, but he does not adequately explain the claim now before the 

Court. Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference, but he does not provide any facts describing his 

medical treatment, nor does he explain why he believes that his treatment was unconstitutional. 

Without additional facts, the Court cannot determine whether Defendant “[knew] of and 

disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. The Court 

need not accept his legal conclusions.

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

3. Fourteenth Amendment

Plaintiff again attempts to assert a cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

However, as the Court explained in the prior screening order, his claim is properly addressed under 

the Eighth Amendment. The concept of substantive due process is expanded only reluctantly and 

therefore, if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, the claim must 

be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of 

substantive due process. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843, 118 S.Ct. 1708 (1998) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted).

Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff cites the Fourteenth Amendment to support some type of 

discrimination claim, he has failed to allege any facts suggesting that any Defendant discriminated 

against him because of his race. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; Serrano v. 

Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th 

Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

///

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/18/16 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

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff does not state any cognizable claims. The Court will provide Plaintiff with one 

final 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 v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); 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).

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it 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 mere 

theory of respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th 

Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 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).

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

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

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

file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in 

this order, and 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/18/16 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

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, 

without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01393-GSA Document 18 Filed 05/18/16 Page 6 of 6