Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00554-9/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

JONATHAN COLLIN AUTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP (PC)

ORDER

FINDING THAT THE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES 

VIABLE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, BABU, KIM, 

AND ABDULLA

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

WEEKLY LAW LIBRARY ACCESS

ECF Nos. 32 & 39 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS BE DISMISSED

ECF No. 32

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this § 1983 case and alleges that, during his time at the 

Sacramento County Jail, defendants violated his rights by denying him adequate medical care and 

failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). I find that plaintiff has 

stated Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-provide-adequate-medical-care and ADA claims against 

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/14/24 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

defendants Babu, Kim, Abdulla, and Sacramento County. I also find, however, that plaintiff’s 

claims against defendant Susan are insufficiently related to his other claims, and should be 

dismissed so that plaintiff may, if he so chooses, bring them in a separate action.

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. 

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/14/24 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

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that he has had unspecified partial amputations to his right foot and that, 

during his time at the Sacramento County Jail, defendants failed to provide him with appropriate 

foot ware, prosthetics, and ADA accommodations. ECF No. 34 at 5. He attributes these failings 

to policies and procedures of the county, id., and the specific actions—or, in some cases, 

inactions—of defendants Babu, Kim, and Abdulla, id. at 6-7, 11. These allegations are, for 

screening purposes, cognizable. 

By contrast, plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Susan, a nurse, appear unrelated to 

his amputation (and attendant health issues). He claims that Susan told other inmates he was 

taking psychiatric medication and accused him of being a “master manipulator.” Id. at 8. He also 

alleges that, in November 2022, he suffered a “psychosomatic attack” and a “paralysis lock up” 

that Susan ignored. Id. at 9. These allegations appear distinct from his ADA and other medical 

claims concerning his foot. Accordingly, they should be brought, if at all, in a separate action. 

See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)); see also

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 21 (providing that a court may add or drop parties “at any 

stage of the action and on such terms as are just”). It does not appear that plaintiff would be 

prejudiced if he were required to bring these claims in a separate suit insofar as it appears his 

claims would still be timely if they were brought anew today. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 

352.1(a) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims and a two-year tolling period 

due to incarceration).

Finally, I will deny plaintiff’s motion for weekly access to the North Kern State Prison 

law library. ECF No. 39. The level of law library access at this facility is not at issue in this suit, 

and I decline to issue orders impacting the operations of that prison. Plaintiff may, however, 

show this order to the relevant officials at the prison as evidence that he is litigating a case in 

federal court, and remind them of his constitutional right to access the courts. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. This action shall proceed based on the Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care 

and ADA claims against defendants Sacramento County, Babu, Kim, and Abdulla.

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/14/24 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

2. The Clerk of court shall send plaintiff four USM-285 forms, a summons, a Notice of

Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the second amended 

complaint filed December 11, 2023, ECF No. 32.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the 

following documents:

a. one completed summons for the defendants;

b. four completed USM-285 forms; and 

c. five copies of the signed December 11, 2023 complaint.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of service. 

Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the U.S. Marshals Service to 

serve the above defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without payment of 

costs by plaintiff.

5. The failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.

6. Plaintiff’s motion for law library access, ECF No. 39, is DENIED.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the claims against defendant Susan be dismissed 

without prejudice as insufficiently related to the other claims in this action. 

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 

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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that 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).

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/14/24 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/14/24 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN COLLIN AUTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP (PC)

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff must submit:

 1 completed summons form

 4 completed forms USM-285 

 5 copies of the December 28, 2023 complaint

_________________________________

Plaintiff

Dated: 

Case 2:22-cv-00554-TLN-JDP Document 41 Filed 03/14/24 Page 6 of 6