Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00426/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00426-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

16cv426-JAH (AGS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE M. REMUND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FERNANDO ZAMUDIO, M.D., et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

D.C. Case No.: 16cv426-JAH (AGS)

U.S.C.A. Case No.: 17-56231

ORDER RESPONDING TO 

REFERRAL NOTICE

This matter comes before the District Court on referral from the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals, “for the limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status 

should continue . . . or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” See Doc. No. 

31 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)). For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds the 

appeal frivolous, and, therefore, REVOKES Plaintiff-Appellant Eugene M. Remund’s 

(“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff-Appellant”) in forma pauperis status.

On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 

complaint against Defendants Fernando Zamudio, M.D., R. Holt, M.D., and John Does 1 

through 10 (collectively, the “Defendants”), alleging that Plaintiff was denied access to 

“adequate and competent medical treatment[,]” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 

1983”). See Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 3:16-cv-00426-JAH-AGS Document 32 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv426-JAH (AGS)

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

1914(a) at the time of filing. Instead, he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Doc. No. 2.

On February 29, 2016, this Court denied Plaintiff’s IFP motion without prejudice 

for failure to include a certified copy of his inmate trust account or an institutional 

equivalent. See Doc. No. 3. On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed (1) a renewed motion for leave 

to proceed IFP; and (2) a “Motion for Stay and Abeyance” seeking a stay of this action 

until the “Inmate Trust Accounts Officer” submitted his inmate trust account statement. 

See Doc. Nos. 4, 5. On April 19, 2016, following review of Plaintiff’s inmate trust account 

statement, and sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court 

granted Plaintiff’s IFP motion, denied the motion to stay as moot, and dismissed the 

complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. See Doc. No. 6.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “FAC”), and a 

freestanding motion to appoint counsel. See Doc. No. 7, 8. On June 29, 2016, this Court 

denied the motion to appoint counsel, without prejudice, and dismissed the FAC for failure 

to state a claim. See Doc. No. 9. Plaintiff was granted forty-five days leave to amend the 

complaint. On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint (“SAC”).

See Doc. No. 10. On August 17, 2016, this Court directed the U.S. Marshal to effect service 

of the SAC on Defendants, and summons was returned executed as to both Defendants, on 

September 30, 2016. See Doc. Nos. 13, 14.

On October 11, 2016, Defendant Zamudio filed a motion dismiss the SAC with 

prejudice, contending that Plaintiff does not, and cannot, state a cognizable § 1983 claim 

because (1) he “plead[s] no facts evidencing deliberate indifference against Dr. 

Zamudio[;]” and (2) medical evidence on the record contradicts Plaintiff’s conclusory 

allegations with respect to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Doc. No. 

16. The motion was set before the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler, United States 

Magistrate Judge. On December 1, 2016, Judge Schopler accepted Plaintiff’s opposition to 

Defendant Zamudio’s motion to dismiss, and ordered it filed nunc pro tunc to November 

Case 3:16-cv-00426-JAH-AGS Document 32 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv426-JAH (AGS)

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

18, 2016. See Doc. Nos. 19, 23. Defendant Zamudio timely filed a reply on December 14, 

2016. See Doc. No. 21.

On May 31, 2017, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Judge Schopler submitted a 

report and recommendation (“Report”) to this Court recommending that Plaintiff’s SAC

be dismissed with prejudice, as to all Defendants, for failure to state a claim. See Doc. No. 

24 at 1 (noting that “[a]n inmate with an ironclad medical malpractice case against prison 

doctors does not necessarily have a winning civil rights lawsuit. A civil rights violation 

requires criminal recklessness—the doctors must disregard an excessive health risk of 

which they are aware. Because the inmate here alleges nothing approaching this standard, 

his civil rights suit fails.”). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), Plaintiff’s objections to 

the Report were due no later than fourteen days after service on Plaintiff. Id. Noting that 

the record reflected no timely objections to the Report, nor any motions for additional time 

to file objections, this Court (1) adopted Judge Schopler’s Report in its entirety; (2) 

dismissed the SAC with prejudice, as to all Defendants; and (3) directed the Clerk of Court 

to enter judgement reflecting the same. See Doc. Nos. 25, 26.

On August 14, 2017, Plaintiff-Appellant appealed the judgment entered against him. 

See Doc. Nos. 28-30. Six days later, on August 21, 2017, the Ninth Circuit referred the 

appeal to this Court for the limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff-Appellant’s 

IFP status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad 

faith. See Doc. No. 31.

An appeal “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law of fact.” See 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 

1996). After reviewing the record, this Court finds the appeal frivolous because PlaintiffAppellant lacks an arguable basis to support the contention that the SAC included facts 

sufficient to state a claim for constitutionally inadequate medical care. See Wood v. 

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[I]solated occurrences of neglect,” as 

well as “mere malpractice, or even gross negligence,” may be inexcusable, but they do not 

amount to deliberate indifference.) (citation omitted); see also Hamby v. Hammond, 821 

Case 3:16-cv-00426-JAH-AGS Document 32 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv426-JAH (AGS)

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

F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (Plaintiffs “‘must show that the course of treatment the 

doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances’ and that the defendants 

‘chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.’”) 

(citations omitted). Plaintiff’s two opportunities to amend, as well as his opposition to the 

motion to dismiss, demonstrated that he could not allege any facts to sufficiently state a 

claim. As such, Plaintiff-Appellant’s IFP status is REVOKED, and the Clerk of Court is 

directed to notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of this order, pursuant to Appellate 

Court’s referral notice, [doc. no. 31].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 1, 2017

 

_________________________________

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00426-JAH-AGS Document 32 Filed 09/01/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4