Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02493/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02493-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

– 1 – 15cv2493

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 15-cv-02493-BAS-AGS

ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 

45); AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 

24)

v.

TONYA ROTHCHILD, et al.,

Defendants.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 13, 2015, Plaintiff Adam Jimenez filed a Complaint alleging 

wrongful transfer to Kern Valley State Prison, which caused him to contract Valley 

Fever, and medical negligence, claiming prison doctors failed to properly medicate 

him once he contracted the Valley Fever. (ECF No. 1.) The Court granted Mr. 

Jimenez’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, but sua sponte dismissed the 

Complaint. (ECF No. 3.)

On the issue of medical negligence, the Court noted that “only ‘deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eight Amendment’” and that Mr. 

Jimenez’s Complaint “lacks any specific allegations that the failure to provide him 

Case 3:15-cv-02493-BAS-AGS Document 50 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
– 2 – 15cv2493

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

with medication for Valley Fever was a result of indifference rather than negligence 

or a disagreement regarding proper treatment.” (ECF No. 3 (quoting Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)).) Nonetheless, the Court gave Mr. Jimenez leave 

to file an amended Complaint.

Mr. Jimenez filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) again alleging a 

wrongful transfer to a prison where he contracted Valley Fever, as well as medical 

negligence. (ECF No. 13.) As to the latter cause of action, Mr. Jimenez alleges that 

at Lancaster State Prison he has “been denied Valley Fever medications by Dr. Ha, 

Dr. Lee, Dr. Bailey who all work as medical doctors here at Lancaster.” (Id.) None 

of these doctors is currently named in the FAC. Neither Lancaster nor Kern Valley 

State Prisons is in the Southern District of California.

Magistrate Judge Shopler issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

recommending that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the claims 

relating to Mr. Jimenez’s transfer to a prison where he was more likely to contract

Valley Fever on the grounds of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 45.) On the issue of 

medical negligence, Judge Shopler concluded that while “the denial of medication 

alone does not necessarily demonstrate constitutional ‘deliberate indifference,’ 

Jimenez should be allowed to amend his complaint one last time, as to this sole 

claim.” (ECF No. 45.) 

Mr. Jimenez requested additional time to object to the R&R, but then never 

filed any objections. Interestingly, however, Defendants J. Silva, E. Ravelo, K. Reid 

and T. Rothchild, who are not currently named as individuals responsible for the 

alleged denial of medication, object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to 

allow Mr. Jimenez to amend one last time. (ECF No. 46.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court reviews de novo those portions of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R to 

which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, 

Case 3:15-cv-02493-BAS-AGS Document 50 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
– 3 – 15cv2493

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

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate judge.” Id. “The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)] makes it clear,” 

however, “that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); 

see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) 

(concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation 

to review the magistrate judge’s report). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 

requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 

parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This rule of 

law is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis,

416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R & R is 

only required when an objection is made to the R & R.”); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F. 

Supp. 2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety 

without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the 

opportunity to do so).

Objections must be written and specific. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 72(b)(2) (“[A] 

party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations” of the magistrate judge). “Numerous courts have held that a 

general objection to the entirety of a Magistrate Judge’s [report and recommendation]

has the same effect as a failure to object.” Alcantara v. McEwen, No. 12-cv-401, 

2013 WL 4517861, at *1 (S.D. Cal. August. 15, 2013) (citing cases). In the absence 

of specific objection, the clear weight of authority indicates that the court need only 

satisfy itself that there is no “clear error” on the face of the record before adopting 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory 

Comm. Notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.3d 5, 7 

(9th Cir. 1974)).

Case 3:15-cv-02493-BAS-AGS Document 50 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
– 4 – 15cv2493

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

III. ANALYSIS

Magistrate Judge Shopler recommends granting the Motion to Dismiss on the 

grounds of qualified immunity with respect to the issue of the transfer to a prison 

where Mr. Jimenez may have been more likely to contract Valley Fever. (ECF No. 

45.) The Magistrate Judge concludes the Court should “not hold prison officials 

acting in 2008 to a higher standard of constitutional clairvoyance than the many 

federal judges who even today—do not discern a clearly established constitutional 

right in similar Valley Fever cases.” Mr. Jimenez has filed no objections to this 

Recommendation, and this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.

The Magistrate Judge further concludes that, although Mr. Jimenez’s 

allegations of failure to provide him with medications to treat his Valley Fever are 

not sufficient to constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, he should be given one 

last opportunity to amend this cause of action. Defendants object on two grounds. 

First, Defendants point out that Mr. Jimenez has already been given one opportunity 

to amend, and he has failed to do so successfully. Second, Defendants argue that any 

medical negligence claim stemming from treatment at Lancaster or Kern Valley State 

Prisons would not be proper in the Southern District of California and would 

necessitate a transfer. The Court overrules both objections.

First, federal jurisprudence is rife with directions to the federal courts to 

liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 

F.2d 1258, 1281 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Boag v. Macdougal, 454 U.S. 364 (1997) (per 

curiam)). Furthermore, “[w]hile Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 places leave to amend within the 

sound discretion of the trial court, . . . a court must remain guided by ‘the underlying 

purpose of Rule 15 . . . to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings 

or technicalities.’” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)), superseded on other 

grounds by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Thus, “a pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it 

Case 3:15-cv-02493-BAS-AGS Document 50 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
– 5 – 15cv2493

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

is ‘absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 

amendment.’” Noll, 809 F.2d at 1448 (quoting Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 

458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam)); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 

(9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to 

amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not 

possibly be cured by the allegations of other facts.” (quotation omitted)).

In this case, Mr. Jimenez has largely been focused on his allegations that he 

was improperly transferred to Kern Valley State Prison and that this transfer caused 

him to contract Valley Fever. The Court has dismissed these claims without leave to 

amend. However, Mr. Jimenez also protests the medical care he received for his 

Valley Fever. As the Court has previously noted, if Mr. Jimenez wishes to proceed 

on these allegations, he will need to assert more than just medical negligence. He 

will need to allege facts that support his claim that the doctors who provided care for 

his Valley Fever were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and not just 

negligent. Mr. Jimenez may not proceed on claims that he disagreed with the 

treatment that the medical professionals found was appropriate. Although the FAC 

is insufficient, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Jimenez should 

be given one last opportunity to assert these allegations. He is cautioned, however, 

that any failure to adequately allege this cause of action in the future is likely to result 

in dismissal with prejudice.

The Court further agrees with Defendants that, as currently alleged, it does not 

appear the venue is proper in the Southern District of California. If Mr. Jimenez is 

alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs at Kern Valley or Lancaster 

Prisons only, the complaint should be brought in the district where these prisons are 

located. However, at this point, with insufficient claims stated by Mr. Jimenez, the 

Court is unclear where this deliberate indifference is alleged to have taken place. 

Should Mr. Jimenez file an Amended Complaint in the Southern District of 

California, and should this Court determine that he alleges sufficient facts to proceed 

Case 3:15-cv-02493-BAS-AGS Document 50 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
– 6 – 15cv2493

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

but that venue is improper in this district, the Court could transfer the case at that 

point in time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Having reviewed the R&R and the Defendants’ objections, the Court 

concludes that, even under a de novo review of the R&R’s reasoning, Judge Shopler’s 

reasoning is sound. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objections 

(ECF No. 46), APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (ECF No. 45), 

and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 24.)

The allegations that Mr. Jimenez was transferred to a prison where he 

contracted Valley Fever are dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Jimenez may not refile 

these claims. The claim that Mr. Jimenez was given inadequate medical care once 

he contracted Valley Fever is dismissed without prejudice. If Mr. Jimenez can allege 

sufficient facts to support a claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to 

his medical needs, he may refile a Second Amended Complaint one last time. 

However, Mr. Jimenez is cautioned that if he fails to allege sufficient facts on any 

future attempt, the Court is likely to dismiss the claims without leave to amend. If 

Mr. Jimenez chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint on the issue of deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs once he contracted Valley Fever, he must do so by 

October 12, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-02493-BAS-AGS Document 50 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6