Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01633-11/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 1

 Plaintiff was proceeding pro se until October 1, 2009. Dckt. No. 105. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGELIO HAMILTON RANGEL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1633 GEB EFB P

vs.

NABIL, et al.,

ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.1

 His November 20, 2002 amended complaint was screened by the previously assigned

magistrate judge on December 9, 2002, and service was found to be appropriate as to defendant

Mehta. Dckt. No. 8. Later, on August 14, 2006, the court granted summary judgment in favor of

defendant Mehta and dismissed this action. Dckt. No. 91. Judgment was duly entered. Dckt.

No. 92.

On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirmed in part,

reversed in part, and remanded the case with instructions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the

order granting summary judgment to defendant Mehta, but reversed the December 9, 2002 order,

Case 2:02-cv-01633-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/25/10 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

2

to the extent that it failed to order service on Dr. Nabil Athanassious. Dckt. No. 99 at 2.

The Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff had stated in his amended complaint “that he

had been deliberately denied medical treatment for prostate problems,” had “attached a portion

of his medical records,” and that plaintiff’s “references to Dr. N or Dr. Nabil were meant to refer

to Dr. Nabil Athanassious.” Id. The Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff stated a claim for

relief against Athanassious. Id. Additionally, the Court of Appeals remanded to this court with

instructions to consider “whether the prison hospital or the Attorney General” are also

appropriate defendants. Id. at 3. The order of remand also suggested that this court appoint

counsel for plaintiff. Id. at 3.

The undersigned appointed counsel to represent plaintiff and, after receiving plaintiff’s

November 3, 2009 status report, directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Dckt.

Nos. 105, 107, 108. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on December 18, 2009, Dckt.

No. 109, and without requesting further leave to amend, subsequently filed a third amended

complaint, Dckt. No. 110. The third amended complaint includes additional factual allegations,

but in all other respects appears to be identical to the second amended complaint. The court

construes this filing as a request for leave to file the newly amended complaint. “The court

should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Consistent with that policy of Rule 15(a), the court grants leave to amend and this action will

proceed on plaintiff’s third amended complaint.

The court has reviewed the third amended complaint and, for the limited purposes of 

§ 1915A screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendant Athanassious. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against California Medical

Facility or the California Attorney General. 

////

////

////

Case 2:02-cv-01633-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/25/10 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

2

 Any official capacity claim against the California Attorney General would be further

limited by the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits for damages against state officials in their

official capacities. Aholelei v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The

Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies,

and state officials acting in their official capacities.”); Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185

3

Plaintiff alleges that the California Attorney General and California Medical Facility

violated his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts

establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44

(9th Cir. 1978)

Plaintiff alleges that the California Attorney General violated plaintiff’s “constitutional

rights to privacy and due process by exerting its administrative and investigative powers in an

unlawful manner.” Dckt. No. 110 at 4. There are no factual allegations showing any personal

involvement by the Attorney General in the violation of plaintiff’s rights. It is plaintiff’s

responsibility to allege facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s

conclusory allegations that the California Attorney General violated his constitutional rights to

due process and privacy do not meet the plausibility standard of Iqbal. Accordingly, the claims

against the California Attorney General must be dismissed.

Moreover, plaintiff may not proceed on section 1983 claims against the California

Attorney General in an official capacity or California Medical Facility, as they are not “persons”

within the meaning of section 1983.2

 See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71

Case 2:02-cv-01633-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/25/10 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 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 816 (1999).

4

(1989) (“neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under 

§ 1983”); Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (state agencies

are not persons within meaning of § 1983). Claims against California Medical Facility must

therefore be dismissed with prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a third amended complaint and the allegations therein

are sufficient to state a cognizable claim against defendant Athanassious. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A.

2. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a

copy of the pleading filed February 11, 2010, one USM-285 form and instructions for service of

process on defendant Athanassious. 

3. Within 14 days from service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice

of Submission of Documents and submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM285 form and two copies of the endorsed February 11, 2010 pleading.

4. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve defendant Athanassious pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without

payment of costs. Defendant will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the

deadlines stated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1). 

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. Claims against California Medical Facility be dismissed with prejudice; and

2. Claims against the California Attorney General be dismissed without prejudice.

 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 fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:02-cv-01633-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/25/10 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

5

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 25, 2010.

Case 2:02-cv-01633-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/25/10 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

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGELIO HAMILTON RANGEL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-1633 GEB EFB P

vs.

NABIL, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed forms USM-285 

 2 copies of the February 11, 2010 Third Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:02-cv-01633-GEB-EFB Document 111 Filed 02/25/10 Page 6 of 6