Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00228/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00228-0/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 

ROBERT MAURICIO PENATE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

H. ZHOU, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-0228-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2, 4. 

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 2:20-cv-00228-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/20 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, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 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, 556 U.S. at 678. 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, 551 U.S. 89 (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 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Zhou, a registered nurse at plaintiff’s institution of 

incarceration, was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment on August 28, 2019. According to plaintiff, on that date he was choking. 

After efforts to stabilize him failed, medical provider Matthews directed defendant Zhou to 

contact the ambulance service for a “Code-3” response. Plaintiff claims that in the next 19 

Case 2:20-cv-00228-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/20 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 

minutes, Sergeant Rodriguez asked Zhou if he had told the ambulance dispatcher “that they were 

needed Code-3.” Zhou said, “Yes.” When the ambulance arrived, they were asked why it had 

taken them so long to respond to a Code-3. The paramedics allegedly replied that the caller had 

not requested a Code-3 response, but had instead simply stated that an ambulance was needed. 

Plaintiff alleges that, by failing to inform the ambulance dispatcher that a Code-3 response was 

required, Zhou extended plaintiff’s suffering and placed his life at risk. 

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 

2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim, and 

only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are 

sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate 

shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 

726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted). 

To state an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on allegedly deficient medical care, a 

plaintiff must allege facts showing that: (1) he had a serious medical need and (2) the defendant’s 

response to that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the 

failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. To act with deliberate indifference, a prison 

official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 

risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 837 (1994). A claim of negligence, even gross negligence constituting medical malpractice, 

does not establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 

F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The allegations of the complaint do not show that Zhou acted with deliberate indifference. 

There are no facts in the complaint that would show that Zhou knew that he would place plaintiff 

at a risk of serious harm by not telling the dispatcher that a Code-3 response was necessary or 

Case 2:20-cv-00228-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/20 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 

that, having such knowledge, he consciously chose not to ask for the Code-3 response. See id. at 

1059 (“[T]here must be a conscious disregard of a serious risk of harm for deliberate indifference 

to exist.”) (emphasis in original). 

Thus, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him of a federal right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if 

he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do 

that causes the alleged deprivation). 

It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

IV. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

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

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Healthcare Facility – Stockton filed 

concurrently herewith. 

Case 2:20-cv-00228-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/20 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 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 

days from the date of service of this order. The amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended Complaint.” Failure 

to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files 

an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with 

service of process by the United States Marshal. 

DATED: April 22, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00228-KJM-EFB Document 6 Filed 04/22/20 Page 5 of 5