Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00031/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00031-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEUELU,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00031-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF Nos. 1, 12)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Kenneth Leuelu (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On April 26, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff stated

a cognizable claim against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to medical care in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment for Defendant’s post-surgery care, but failed to state any 

other cognizable claims for relief against any other defendant. (ECF No. 11.) The Court ordered 

Plaintiff to either file a first amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed 

only on the cognizable claims identified by the Court. (Id.) On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 

notice that he does not wish to file an amended complaint, and is agreeable only on the 

cognizable claim against Defendant Paul identified by the Court. (ECF No. 12.)

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 7
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

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 

or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

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 

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 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 

true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 

572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 

is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

A. Allegations in Complaint

Plaintiff is currently housed at Corcoran State Prison. The events in the complaint 

allegedly arose in Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). Plaintiff names the following defendants: 

(1) Steven Paul, oral surgeon, (2) Chris Chung, dentist; (3) Tadros Tarek, dentist; and (4) Kern 

Valley State Prison. 

In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges denial of medical care.

Nither [sic] doctors prescribed me any antibiotic medications after my surgery 

which cause [sic] great pain and high infection. They should have prescribed 

antibiotics after surgery to prevent infection. Osteomylytis (bone/infection) and 

“sepsis”. I had surgery on 11-22-22 at KVSP-CTC by Dr. Paul and was admitted to 

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 7
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

outside hospital on 11/27-22 for osteomylytis (bone infection) and “sepsis.” I was at 

outside hospital over 2 weeks Adventist Heath Delano then transferred to Bakersfield 

Hospital for bone/infection treatment. Had to have surgery for infection then had to 

continue treatment for ‘pick line’ another 28 days to continue bone infection 

treatment through pick line in left arm for IV. Lost weight because couldn’t chew 

and suffered from pain. Dr. Paul, Steven who did surgery on me at KVSP-CTC 

(biopsy) and removed abscess, was [unintelligible] tooth and jaw bone is under 

contract with KVSP to medically treat inmates at KVSP.

Plaintiff alleges that by not prescribing antibiotics after surgery to prevent infection, Plaintiff got 

a very bad infection and was greatly in pain. Plaintiff was hospitalized for osteomyelitis (bone 

infection) and sepsis.

In claims 2 and 3, Plaintiff alleges that “nither doctor” prescribe any antibiotics after 

surgery resulting in Plaintiff being hospitalized for osteomyelitis (bone infection) and sepsis.

As remedies, Plaintiff seeks damages.

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and fails to 

state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, except as to Defendant Steven Paul. 

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation 

omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556–57; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Although Plaintiff's complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of his claims. As a basic 

matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 

involved. Plaintiff should state what each defendant did that allegedly violated his constitutional 

rights. Plaintiff does not state what Defendants Chung and Tarek did which violated his rights.

///

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 7
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. Linkage Requirement

Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act requires that there be an actual connection or link 

between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by 

Plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978). Plaintiff fails to link Chris Chung or Tadros Tarek to any alleged wrongdoing. 

Plaintiff has not alleged either Defendant’s role or conduct in the surgery or post-surgery care.

3. Eleventh Amendment

Plaintiff has named KVSP as a defendant. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for 

money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their 

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

Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing a Section 1983 lawsuit in 

which damages or injunctive relief is sought against a state, its agencies (such as CDCR) or 

individual prisons, absent “a waiver by the state or a valid congressional override. . . .” Dittman 

v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits which 

seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, ‘an arm of the state,’ its instrumentalities, 

or its agencies.” See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Lodi, Cal., 302 F.3d 928, 957 n.28 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and citations omitted), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 961 (2003). “The 

State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims 

brought under § 1983 in federal court. . . .” Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025–26 (citing Atascadero 

State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)); see also Brown v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 

F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding California Department of Corrections and California Board 

of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). 

As KVSP is immune under the Eleventh Amendment, Plaintiff cannot pursue claims for 

damages or injunctive relief against the State or KVSP in this action. Plaintiff’s claim for 

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/16/24 Page 4 of 7
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

monetary damages also is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

4. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are “deliberate[ly] indifferen[t] to [a 

prisoner’s] serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “A medical need 

is serious if failure to treat it will result in ‘ “significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain.” ’ ” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081–82 (2014) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 

439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir.

1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(en banc)).

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must 

first “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. Second, 

the plaintiff must show the defendants’ response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 

(quotation marks omitted)).

“Indications that a plaintiff has a serious medical need include the 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 or substantial pain.” Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 

2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122; Lopez v. 

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

Deliberate indifference is “a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” and 

“requires ‘more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.’ ” Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown where a prison official “knows that inmates face a substantial 

risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847. Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 

391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this standard, the prison official must not only ‘be 

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/16/24 Page 5 of 7
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

aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists,’ but that person ‘must also draw the inference.’ ” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

837). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has 

not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id. (quoting Gibson v. 

County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Plaintiff states a serious medical need in that he needed oral surgery on a tooth.

Liberally construing the allegations, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant 

Steven Paul for post-surgery care.

However, Plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable claim against Defendant Chung or 

Defendant Tarek. Plaintiff does not include any factual support of their conduct in either the 

surgery or post-surgery care. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.

III. Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim

against Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment for Defendant’s post-surgery care. However, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to 

state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Judge to 

this action.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 8, 2024, (ECF No. 1), against 

Defendant Steven Paul for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment for Defendant’s post-surgery care; and

2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims 

upon which relief may be granted.

* * *

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/16/24 Page 6 of 7
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

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on 

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00031-KES-BAM Document 16 Filed 05/16/24 Page 7 of 7