Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02007/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02007-0/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 

JOHN A. MAGANA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CSP SOLANO CDCR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-2007 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former state inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 without a lawyer. He has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for 

this action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 

afford to pay the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners1 seeking relief against “a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The federal in forma pauperis statute also authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the action 

“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) 

1

 Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he filed his lawsuit but was recently released on parole. 

See ECF No. 7. 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 1 of 8
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 

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is 

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989). 

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim upon which the 

court can grant relief has facial plausibility. 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When 

considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the allegations as true, 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Factual Allegations of the Complaint 

The complaint alleges that the unnamed warden of California State Prison (CSP)-Solano, 

Dr. Cortez, and physician’s manager Keursten violated plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth 

Amendment. ECF No. 1. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he reported to Cortez, his primary 

care physician, that he was experiencing severe back pain and was concerned that the 

osteomyelitis infection he had experienced five years ago had returned. Id. at 3-5. Cortez told 

plaintiff he was in line to go to an outside hospital for an x-ray since there was no x-ray 

technician at the prison, but it took three months for plaintiff to be sent out during which time he 

did not receive any pain medication. Id. After plaintiff’s x-ray came back, he was initially 

misdiagnosed as having arthritis. Id. Three weeks later Cortez called plaintiff back and told him 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 8
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 

he was being sent to the hospital because he had an osteomyelitis abscess in his spine. Id. 

III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

After conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court finds that 

plaintiff has adequately stated a valid claim for relief pursuant to the Eighth Amendment against 

defendant Cortez for failing to provide plaintiff with pain medication for his back. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

However, the allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to state any other claims for 

relief against Cortez or any claims for relief against the warden or defendant Keursten. Aside 

from failing to provide plaintiff with pain medication, there are no facts showing that Cortez 

knew of a risk to plaintiff’s health or safety and then ignored it, and the allegation that he 

misdiagnosed plaintiff is not sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference. See Wilhelm 

v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012) (negligent misdiagnosis does not constitute 

deliberate indifference). Although it took three months for plaintiff to get an x-ray, there are no 

facts showing that Cortez was responsible for or had any control over the delay. Plaintiff has 

failed to state any claims against the warden or Keursten because he has not alleged any conduct 

by either defendant. It appears to the court that plaintiff may be able to allege facts to fix these 

problems. Therefore, plaintiff has the option of filing an amended complaint. 

V. Options from Which Plaintiff Must Choose 

Based on the court’s screening, plaintiff has a choice to make. After selecting an option 

from the two options listed below, plaintiff must return the attached Notice of Election form to 

the court within 21 days from the date of this order. 

The first option available to plaintiff is to proceed immediately against defendant 

Cortez on the Eighth Amendment claim based on the failure to provide pain medication. 

By choosing this option, plaintiff will be agreeing to voluntarily dismiss all other claims 

against defendant Cortez and all claims against the warden and defendant Keursten. The 

court will proceed to immediately serve the complaint and order a response from defendant 

Cortez. 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 3 of 8
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 

The second option available to plaintiff is to file an amended complaint to fix the 

problems described in Section IV against the defendants. If plaintiff chooses this option, the 

court will set a deadline in a subsequent order to give plaintiff time to file an amended 

complaint. 

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 

 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 

not. You have stated a claim against defendant Cortez for not giving you pain medication. You 

have not stated any other claims against him or against the warden or Keursten. 

You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your Eighth 

Amendment claim for failure to provide pain medication against Cortez and voluntarily dismiss 

all other claims and defendants; or (2) try to amend the complaint. To decide whether to amend 

your complaint, the court has attached the relevant legal standards that may govern your claims 

for relief. See Attachment A. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an 

amended complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff has not stated any claims for which relief can be granted except for his Eighth 

Amendment claim against defendant Cortez for failing to provide pain medication. 

3. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claim 

against defendant Cortez as set forth in Section III above, or to file an amended complaint. 

4. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 

complaint or whether he wants to file an amended complaint. 

5. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court will assume that he is choosing to 

proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend dismissal without prejudice of all 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 4 of 8
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 

claims and defendants except for his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Cortez for 

failing to provide pain medication. 

DATED: October 30, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 5 of 8
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 

JOHN A. MAGANA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CSP SOLANO CDCR, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-2007 AC P 

NOTICE OF ELECTION 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment claim against defendant 

Cortez for failing to provide pain medication without amending the complaint. Plaintiff 

understands that by choosing this option, the all other claims against defendant Cortez and 

all claims against defendants CSP-Solano warden and Keursten will be voluntarily 

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 John A. Magana 

 Plaintiff pro se 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 6 of 8
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 

Attachment A 

This Attachment provides, for informational purposes only, the legal standards that may 

apply to your claims for relief. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an 

amended complaint. 

I. Legal Standards Governing Amended Complaints 

If plaintiff chooses to file an 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 specifically identify 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 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 amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint replaces the prior 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). Therefore, in an amended complaint, every claim and every defendant must be included. 

II. Legal Standards Governing Substantive Claims for Relief 

Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a 

violation of the prisoner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 

97, 104-05 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation only when the individual is 

deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id.; see Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 In the Ninth Circuit, the test for deliberate indifference consists of two parts. Jett, 439 

F.3d at 1096, citing McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 7 of 8
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 

grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). First, the 

plaintiff must show a “serious medical need” by demonstrating that “failure to treat a prisoner’s 

condition could result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain.’” Id., citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. “Examples of serious medical needs include ‘[t]he 

existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and worthy of 

comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 

individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.’” Lopez, 203 F. 3d 

at 1131-1132, citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059-60. 

 Second, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. This second prong is satisfied by showing (a) a purposeful act 

or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the 

indifference. Id. Under this standard, the prison official must not only “be aware of facts from 

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but that person 

“must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). This “subjective 

approach” focuses only “on what a defendant’s mental attitude actually was.” Id. at 839. A 

showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 

Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106. A 

difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, nor does 

a dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of medical 

treatment amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 

(9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, mere delay of 

medical treatment, “without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical 

indifference.” Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Where a prisoner alleges that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the 

prisoner must show that the delay caused “significant harm and that Defendants should have 

known this to be the case.” Hallett, 296 F.3d at 745-46; see McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. 

Case 2:23-cv-02007-DJC-AC Document 8 Filed 10/31/24 Page 8 of 8