Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01175/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01175-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

ISMAEL LOPEZ-RANGEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COPENHAVER, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01175 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Ismael Lopez-Rangel (“Plaintiff”), a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on July 28, 2014, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for 

violation of civil rights by federal actors.1 

On January 22, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it with leave 

to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 2, 2015.

This action was dismissed without prejudice on December 9, 2015, after Plaintiff was 

released and deported, but failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Plaintiff, who 

now resides in Mexico, filed a notice of change of address on January 21, 2016. The Court 

reopened this action on January 26, 2016.

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on August 13, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 10
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

On January 29, 2016, the Court screened the First Amended Complaint and dismissed it 

with leave to amend.

On April 26, 2016, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise contact 

the Court, the Court again dismissed the action without prejudice. 

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Second Amended Complaint. Because Plaintiff 

was attempting to comply with Court orders and the possibility of mail delays given that he 

resides in Mexicon, the Court again vacated the judgment.

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names USP-Atwater Warden Copenhaver, 

Health Service Administrator Ms. Mettry, Nurse Franco, Doctors Franco, Grossman and Grimm, 

Physician’s Assistant Wong and Counselor Gardea as Defendants.

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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, malicious,” or 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. § 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).

Under Bivens, a plaintiff may sue a federal officer in his or her individual capacity for 

damages for violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Bivens, 403 U.S. at 397. “Actions 

under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state 

actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th 

Cir.1991). To state a claim under Bivens, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed 

by a federal actor. See Van Strum, 940 F.2d at 409.

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 

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 10
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

required, but “[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) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial 

plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, 

while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

B. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff has been released from federal custody and is currently residing in Mexico.

The events at issue occurred while he was incarcerated at USP-Atwater.

Plaintiff alleges that upon arrival at USP-Atwater, he contacted Health Services and 

requested medical assistance for an eye problem. Plaintiff told Health Services that he needed 

surgery for an eye infection. Medical “responded that infection that required surgery.” ECF No. 

20, at 9. Medical told him to submit a cop-out. Plaintiff submitted a cop-out, but was then told 

by Medical to submit a sick-call form. Plaintiff didn’t understand because Defendant Dr. Franco 

told him to submit a cop-out, but Defendant Mettry of Health Services told him to submit a sickcall. 

Plaintiff told Defendant Gardea, his counselor, about his medical problems, but he never 

did anything to help.

Plaintiff then went to Defendant Copenhaver, the Warden. He told Plaintiff that 

Defendant Mettry was going to look into Plaintiff’s eye problem, but she never did. 

Plaintiff submitted another cop-out and Defendant Wong received it. However, seven or 

eight months passed before Plaintiff received his first eye surgery. 

Plaintiff contends that the surgery was the result of his notification that he was going to 

initiate a complaint against Medical.

After his surgery, Plaintiff experienced intense pain, loss of sight, headaches, nausea and 

other painful symptoms. He requested medication and eye drops from Health Services, and 

Medical indicated that Plaintiff would be seen.

///

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 10
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

Plaintiff followed Medical’s orders and submitted a cop-out. He did not get a response 

and submitted another one.

After fifteen to twenty days of waiting in pain for medical assistance, the pain forced 

Plaintiff to remove his bandages. He was not able to see properly and discovered that he was 

losing sight.

Plaintiff submitted another cop-out to Medical, but his cop-outs were not answered.

Plaintiff submitted three more cop-outs. Eight months later, Medical or Health services 

informed him of a second surgery.

Plaintiff underwent a second eye surgery. When he returned, he experienced vomiting, 

nausea and respiratory problems. Plaintiff was unable to stop vomiting, and Medical gave him a 

shot to help reduce the vomiting. After the shot, Plaintiff was not given any other medication and 

was immediately sent to his unit. 

After arriving at his unit, Plaintiff was in pain all night. He notified BOP officials of his 

pain and eye problem, but the officials ignored his requests for medical attention.

Plaintiff was in pain all night. He notified Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) officials of his pain 

and eye problem, but they ignored his requests for medical attention. Plaintiff was told by the 

6A-Unit BOP officials to submit another cop-out to Medical so that he could get medical 

attention.

After three or four days, Medical called Plaintiff to examine his eye. Plaintiff had pain in 

his eye, but he believed that the pain was going away and that he was going to be able to see 

clearly in a couple of days. That did not happen. 

About twenty days later, Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Mettry and informed her that he 

had a blister and what looked like a water bubble in his eye. Defendant Mettry only told Plaintiff 

that he should submit a cop-out.

Plaintiff submitted a cop-out and waited for a month with no answer. He submitted 

another cop-out, but again received no answer. Plaintiff then went to Defendant Copenhaver, 

Defendant Gardea, the Doctor and Physician’s Assistant, as well as other medical personnel, to 

inform them of the blisters, red spots, water bubbles and pain in his eye.

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 4 of 10
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

Defendant Mettry told Plaintiff to look at the call-out for scheduling. Plaintiff was called 

to Medical three times, but each time, the eye specialist was not there to see him. He was 

rescheduled each time.

On the fourth appointment, Plaintiff was seen by an eye doctor. The doctor told Plaintiff 

that he was going to perform a third surgery. Plaintiff told the doctor that he did not trust him 

because it was going to be the third surgery. The doctor did not know that Plaintiff had been 

subjected to two previous surgeries. The doctor told Plaintiff that he would not force Plaintiff to 

have the surgery.

Plaintiff explains that he does not speak, write or understand English, and the eye doctor 

did not speak Spanish. Plaintiff believes that his communication was hindered by the language 

barrier, though he declined further surgeries because of distrust. Plaintiff told the doctor that he 

would resort to the courts for assistance.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grossman performed the first two surgeries. Plaintiff 

contends that Defendant Grossman failed to inform him of any additional surgeries, and failed to 

provide adequate medical care. 

Plaintiff contends that prior to the second surgery, Defendant Grim administered 

anesthesia. However, he overmedicated Plaintiff, resulting in vomiting, headaches and dizziness.

Plaintiff also alleges that at some point, Defendant Wong performed a physical 

examination, but not an eye examination. He states that he did not request a physical, but rather 

asked for assistance with his eye problem.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ negligent acts contributed to the loss of sight and pain 

in his left eye. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges violation of his due process rights 

under the Fifth Amendment, and cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. 

C. DISCUSSION

The Court notes that as with Plaintiff’s prior amendments, the Second Amended 

Complaint offers little, if any, additional factual information. While Plaintiff has added, changed 

///

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 5 of 10
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

and/or deleted certain legal language, the allegations in his Second Amended Complaint remain 

largely the same as those in his original complaint.

1. Linkage

To state a claim, Plaintiff must link each named defendant to a violation of his 

constitutional rights; there is no respondeat superior liability under Bivens. Starr v. Baca, 652 

F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); Serra v. Lappin, 600 

F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Although Plaintiff names Defendant Nurse Franco as a Defendant, he fails to allege any 

specific facts against her. In his causes of action, he simply states that she was negligent in 

failing to provide adequate medical care. He also alleges that she failed to take action and 

delayed medical assistance. Legal conclusions, without factual support, are insufficient to state a 

claim.

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Nurse Franco. Plaintiff was 

informed of this deficiency in the prior screening orders, but failed to correct it.

2. Fifth Amendment

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fifth 

Amendment. This claim is based on his belief that Defendants provided negligent medical care 

and/or ignored his requests for medical assistance.

When a constitutional amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional 

protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that amendment, not the more 

generalized notion of substantive due process, must govern. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 

523 U.S. 833, 842 (1998). 

Here, Plaintiff’s medical claims are governed by the Eighth Amendment and are therefore 

not cognizable under the Fifth Amendment.

4. 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 6 of 10
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

7

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 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. 

a. Defendants Dr. Franco, Mettry, Gardea and Copenhaver

Insofar as Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Dr. Franco and Mettry ignored his medical 

needs, his facts show that he asked them for medical treatment and they instructed him to submit 

medical requests. In one instance, Defendant Mettry instructed Plaintiff to “look at the call-out 

for scheduling.” Although Plaintiff may not have liked their instructions on how to obtain 

medical care, there is no indication that they acted with the requisite state of mind. Mere 

negligence or inadvertence, or a difference in medical judgment or opinion does not amount to 

deliberate indifference. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06; see also McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060 (“A 

defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical 

need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”) (emphasis added). 

Similarly, Plaintiff alleges that he asked Defendant Copenhaver for help with his eye 

problem, and that Defendant Copenhaver told him that Defendant Mettry would look into the 

issue. Again, Defendant Copenhaver responded to Plaintiff’s inquiry and there is no indication 

that he acted with deliberate indifference. While Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mettry did not 

follow-up, he does not link this failure to Defendant Copenhaver, nor does he provide sufficient 

facts about Defendant Mettry’s failure to establish that she acted with deliberate indifference. 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106. 

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 7 of 10
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

8

As to Defendant Gardea, Plaintiff contends that he informed Counselor Gardea about 

Plaintiff’s medical problems, but he never did anything to help Plaintiff. Again, these allegations 

are too vague to demonstrate that Defendant Gardea’s failure was deliberately indifferent. There 

is no indication that Defendant Gardea’s actions were purposeful.

Plaintiff also alleges that he informed Defendants Copenhaver, Mettry and Gardea about 

blisters and red spots in his eye. However, Plaintiff’s allegations show that he was then called for 

medical appointments. He states that he was rescheduled three times because the eye specialist 

never appeared, but there is no indication that any Defendants were responsible for this. Plaintiff 

eventually saw the eye specialist at his fourth appointment.

Moreover, Plaintiff cites various delays of weeks or months, but he does not link any 

named Defendant to the actual delay. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of 

Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2013).

Finally, insofar as Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Dr. Franco, Mettry and Copenhaver 

failed to train and supervise USP-Atwater medical staff, he fails to state a claim. Supervisory 

personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of subordinate employees 

based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 

(9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 

(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “A 

supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional 

deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful 

conduct and the constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Snow, 681 F.3d at 

989) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 

915-16. 

Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Dr. Franco, Copenhaver and Mettry failed to 

train and supervise medical staff, he does not provide any factual support to either (1) directly 

link them to this failure; or (2) suggest a causal connection between their alleged failures and a 

constitutional violation. A conclusory assertion that Defendants failed to properly train and 

///

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 8 of 10
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

9

supervise staff will not support a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983. Crowley, 734 

F.3d at 977; Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75.

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendants Mettry, Copenhaver, 

Gardea and Dr. Franco. Plaintiff was informed of these deficiencies in the prior screening order, 

but has not corrected them.

b. Defendant Wong

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Wong received a cop-out slip, but that seven or eight 

months then passed before Plaintiff received surgery. Plaintiff does not connect Defendant Wong 

to this delay, however.

Plaintiff further contends that Defendant Wong performed a physical even though Plaintiff 

specifically requested an eye exam. He does not provide facts to show that Defendant Wong 

acted with deliberate indifference, however. Even assuming that Defendant Wong erred, a 

finding which is not necessarily supported by the record, an Eighth Amendment claim may not be 

premised on even gross negligence by a physician. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Defendant Wong. Plaintiff was informed 

of these deficiencies in the prior screening order, but has failed to correct them.

c. Defendants Grossman and Grim

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Grossman’s negligence during an unsuccessful eye surgery 

and Defendant Grim’s negligent actions in overmedicating Plaintiff with anesthesia violated the 

Eighth Amendment. Again, however, Plaintiff does not provide sufficient facts to show that they 

acted with the requisite state of mind. As explained above, even if Defendants Grossman and 

Grim erred in their treatment, an Eighth Amendment claim may not be premised on even gross 

negligence by a physician. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Defendants Grossman and Grim. Plaintiff 

was informed of these deficiencies in the prior screening order but has failed to correct them.

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 9 of 10
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

10

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state any cognizable claims against any 

Defendant. Plaintiff has been provided numerous opportunities to correct the deficiencies, but he 

has failed to do so. In the prior screening order, the Court notified Plaintiff that this would be his 

final opportunity to amend. Accordingly, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not 

warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Therefore, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND for failure to 

state a claim for which relief can be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8th: All violated 8th. After two weeks, Plaintiff’s eye problems worsened. Defendants knowing 

and willful lack of disregard for his health violated the Eighth and exposed him to unnecessary 

pain and suffering, resulting in permanent eye injury 

Case 1:14-cv-01175-DLB Document 22 Filed 07/13/16 Page 10 of 10