Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00569-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL VERDUZCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. JAO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-CV-0569-TLN-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See ECF No. 

16.

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 

Case 2:22-cv-00569-TLN-DMC Document 26 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 

impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 

and conclusory. 

On May 14, 2024, the Court issued an order addressing the sufficiency of 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See ECF No. 25. The Court determined the first amended 

complaint stated the following cognizable claims: (1) Eighth Amendment claims against 

Defendants Tran and Jao in the first claim alleging deliberate indifference during suicide watch 

and Plaintiff’s self-injury in August 2019; (2) Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants 

Areja, Mohammed, and Ojagwu in the second claim alleging deliberate indifference during 

suicide watch and Plaintiff’s self-injury in October 2019; and (3) Eighth Amendment claim 

against Defendant Sill in the third claim alleging deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s self-injury 

in May 2020. See id. The Court also found: (1) Plaintiff has not stated cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claims against Defendants Ferrera or Rosenof in the third claim; (2) Plaintiff has not 

stated any cognizable claims arising under the First Amendment in the third or fourth claims; (3) 

Plaintiff cannot state a stand-alone claim against any defendant arising from handling of the 

inmate appeals and grievance process. See id.

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file a second amended complaint 

addressing the defects identified in the Court’s May 14, 2024, order. See id. Plaintiff was 

cautioned that, if no second amended complaint was filed within 30 days, the action would 

proceed on the cognizable claims previously identified and the Court would issue findings and 

recommendations for dismissal of all other claims and defendants. See id. To date, Plaintiff has 

not filed a second amended complaint. By separate order, the Court directs service on Defendants 

Areja, Mohammed, Ojagwu, Tran, Jao, and Sill. The Court herein recommends dismissal of all 

other claims and defendants. 

/ / /

Case 2:22-cv-00569-TLN-DMC Document 26 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows:

1. This action proceed as to the following claims and defendants:

a. Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Tran and 

Jao in the first claim alleging deliberate indifference during suicide watch 

and Plaintiff’s self-injury in August 2019.

b. Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Areja, 

Mohammed, and Ojagwu in the second claim alleging deliberate 

indifference during suicide watch and Plaintiff’s self-injury in October 

2019.

c. Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Sill in the 

third claim alleging deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s self-injury in 

May 2020.

2. All other claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. 

3. Defendants Ferrera, Rosenof, Recarey, Lowe, Prasad, Brunner, Martinez, 

Yang, Blumenthal, Jones, Purtie, and Singh be dismissed.

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 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 11, 2024

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00569-TLN-DMC Document 26 Filed 07/12/24 Page 3 of 3