Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02036/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02036-0/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 

ORLANDO BLACKWELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. DOSUELLA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2036-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

Case 2:13-cv-02036-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 5
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

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

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. 

Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. 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, 

129 S. Ct. at 1949. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have 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, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to 

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

III. Screening Order 

 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and for the limited purpose of § 1915A 

screening, finds that it states a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference 

to medical needs claim against defendants Albalos,1

 Dosuella, Copley,2 Feinberg, Sahota,3 and 

 

1

 Plaintiff also refers to this defendant in the complaint with the alternate spelling of “Albuley.” 

2

 Plaintiff also refers to this defendant in the complaint with the alternate spelling of “Copland.” 

Case 2:13-cv-02036-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 5
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

Torrella, based upon plaintiff’s allegations that their conduct or policies caused plaintiff to 

experience four days of severe pain without relief after he completely ruptured his Achilles 

tendon. 

 The complaint does not state a claim against Folsom State Prison, which is not a proper 

defendant. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, 

and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Folsom State Prison is not a person. Moreover, state 

agencies, such as CDCR and its prisons, are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. 

See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 

F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claims 

against CDCR for damages and injunctive relief were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity); 

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment 

immunity extends to state agencies). 

 Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed against defendants Albalos, Dosuella, Copley, 

Feinberg, Sahota, and Torrella only, and defendant Folsom State Prison must be dismissed 

without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth 

Circuit case law, district courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can 

possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit 

entirely.”); see also Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district court 

should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it 

determines that the pleading could not be cured by the allegation of other facts.”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

///// 

///// 

 3

 Plaintiff also refers to this defendant in the complaint with the alternate spelling of “Shoata.” 

Case 2:13-cv-02036-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/03/14 Page 3 of 5
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. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the CDCR filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state a potentially 

cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claims 

against defendants Albalos, Dosuella, Copley, Feinberg, Sahota, and Torrella. 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff six USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and one copy of the October 1, 2013 complaint. 

5. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

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

summons and USM-285 forms and seven copies of the endorsed October 1, 2013 

complaint. 

6. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without 

payment of costs. Failure to comply with this order may result in this action being 

dismissed. 

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Folsom State Prison be 

dismissed without leave to amend. 

 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.” 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). 

Dated: July 2, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02036-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/03/14 Page 4 of 5
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ORLANDO BLACKWELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D. DOSUELLA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2036-TLN-EFB P 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s 

Screening Order: 

 1 completed summons form 

 6 completed forms USM-285 

 7 copies of the endorsed October 1, 2013 complaint 

Dated: 

 ____________________________ 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:13-cv-02036-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/03/14 Page 5 of 5