Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00477/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00477-4/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOTO ERNESTO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00477 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Soto Ernesto (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 

rights complaint on March 29, 2012. On February 27, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint 

with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 22, 2013. Plaintiff 

names Matthew Cate, Warden Connie Gipson, Dr. J. Moon, R.N. M. Ceballos, Dr. J. Kim, Dr. 

M. Loadholt, Dr. Edgar Clark, R.N. P. Rouch, Teresa Macias and L. Zamora as Defendants.

 Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis.1

A. LEGAL STANDARD

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on April 17, 2012.

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 11
2

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

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

B. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Secured Housing Unit at California State Prison, 

Corcoran (“CSP”), where the events at issue occurred.

Plaintiff alleges that he has a history of sciatic nerve damage caused by gunshots prior to 

his incarceration. In the beginning of September 2007, Plaintiff experienced an intense, sharp 

pain at the back-side of his right knee. The pain included his lower-back and shot through his 

right testicle and rectal area.

Plaintiff was first evaluated by Defendant Loadholt. Defendant Loadholt conducted a 

prostate exam and prescribed Terazosin, a prostate enlargement medication. At the time of the 

exam, Plaintiff could not properly urinate. 

On November 4, 2007, Plaintiff was prescribed Oxybutynin at a dosage that was threetimes higher than an average dose. Plaintiff contends that the inadequate and excessive amount 

of medication prescribed by Defendant Loadholt caused him to suffer serious adverse effects and 

worsened his condition. Plaintiff told Defendant Loadholt that the medication she prescribed 

was not working and that his condition was getting worse.

On November 25, 2007, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Ceballos and a catheter 

procedure was conducted. 

On November 26, 2007, Defendant Kim performed a second prostate exam. Plaintiff told 

Defendant Kim that his nerve damage was causing him pain and making him unable to urinate. 

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 11
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

He also told Defendant Kim that the Oxybutynin did not help with his inability to urinate and 

caused pain and suffering. Defendant Kim ignored Plaintiff’s complaints and just re-prescribed 

the Oxybutynin. 

On November 29, 2007, Plaintiff saw Defendant Loadholt again. He complained of 

severe pain and an inability to urinate. A third prostate exam was conducted and Oxybutynin 

was again prescribed. Defendant Loadholt did not provide any care for Plaintiff’s original nerve 

pain problems.

On December 4, 2007, Plaintiff was experiencing severe pain in his lower abdomen, right 

testicle, penis and bladder. Defendant Loadholt requested that Plaintiff undergo a fourth prostate 

exam. Plaintiff told her that he had three prostate exams in less than two months and that a 

fourth one was excessive and unnecessary. Plaintiff explains that the prostate exams at CSP are 

conducted in embarrassing and humiliating conditions, with correctional officers in the room and 

numerous medical personnel observing. 

On February 12, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Ceballos. He was in severe pain 

and was unable to urinate. Defendant Ceballos inserted a catheter “forcefully” and without due 

care, causing pain and suffering. Since this procedure, Plaintiff is still experiencing pain and 

discomfort in the bladder area.

On February 12, 2008, the emergency room personnel at CSP Hospital ordered Plaintiff 

to be brought back for emergency evaluation. Plaintiff was evaluated by Defendant Moon, who 

told Plaintiff that another prostate exam was needed. During the exam, Plaintiff was in severe 

pain and unable to urinate. Plaintiff told Defendant Moon that three prior prostate exams were 

conducted within the past three months. Defendant Moon told Plaintiff that he did not have his 

medical file and that needed to perform the procedure to rule out serious problems, including 

cancer. Plaintiff consented to the prostate exam, believing that he had no other option. During 

the exam, Plaintiff was shackled in waist chains and lying down on his side. Plaintiff alleges that 

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 11
4

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

the exam subjected his to sever pain and discomfort. Defendant Moon prescribed Hytrin, in 

addition to numerous other medications. He failed, however, to prescribe anything for Plaintiff’s 

pain and suffering.

On February 20, 2008, Plaintiff saw Defendant Loadholt again and continued to complain 

of severe pain and an inability to urinate. Defendant Loadholt refused to provide Plaintiff with 

adequate medication or treatment for sciatic nerve damage and pain in his testicles, penis, 

bladder and abdomen. Defendant Loadholt prescribed Hytrin, which consequently caused 

Plaintiff’s urination condition to worsen and caused pain and suffering.

On February 26, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Health Care Request Form complaining of severe 

pain and an inability to urinate. 

On April 4, 2008, Plaintiff underwent his first cystoscopy urethral dilation surgery. The 

results detected a mildly enlarged prostate. 

Plaintiff underwent several urinalyses that detected blood in his urine during 2009, 2010 

and 2011. 

Shortly after a cystoscopy procedure in 2010, Plaintiff was told by Dr. Narredy that a 

mildly enlarged prostate is normal for adult males. Dr. Narredy discontinued all medications that 

Defendants Loadholt, Moon and Kim had prescribed and which caused a deterioration of 

Plaintiff’s health.

Presently, Plaintiff continues to experience urination complications along with pain and 

suffering. Up to 33 medications have been prescribed and Plaintiff told all Defendant doctors of 

the continuous complications and side effects. 

On February 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed an inmate grievance complaining of the ongoing 

medical problem that CSP medical personnel had failed to acknowledge or resolve. 

On May 27, 2010, Defendant Rouch interviewed Plaintiff and subsequently denied that 

she ordered him to be seen by a nerve specialist or to receive pain medication.

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 4 of 11
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

On October 25, 2010, Defendants Clark and Macias signed off on the denial of Plaintiff’s 

appeal at the Second Level.

On March 30, 2011, Defendant Zamora denied Plaintiff’s appeal at the Director’s Level. 

Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a 

serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard

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 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains 

while in prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks 

omitted). To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, inmates must show deliberate indifference 

to a substantial risk of harm to their health or safety. E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. 

Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th 

Cir. 2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 

1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

For claims arising out of medical care in prison, Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious 

medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in further 

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a 

prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 

680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 5 of 11
6

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

978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

Deliberate indifference may be shown “when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally 

interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison physicians 

provide medical care.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

2. Defendants Cate and Gipson

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named Defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 

1937, 1948-49 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 

2010). Liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat 

superior, as each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-

77, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Supervisors may only be held liable if they “participated in or directed 

the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), 

cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012).

Here, Plaintiff names Cate and Gipson as Defendants, but fails to allege any facts linking 

them to any alleged constitutional violation. Both Defendants Cate and Gipson are in 

supervisory positions, and Plaintiff has failed to either (1) directly link them to the alleged 

deprivations through personal participation, or (2) allege that they knew of the deprivations and 

failed to act.

Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against either Defendant Cate or Defendant 

Gipson. 

3. Defendant Ceballos

Allegations of negligence are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

“Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a 

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 6 of 11
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

prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1977); Snow v. McDaniel, 681 

F.3d 978, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2012); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ceballo performed two catheter-insertion 

procedures. He alleges no facts relating to the first procedure. As for the second procedure in 

February 2008, Plaintiff states that Defendant Ceballo inserted the catheter “forcefully” and 

without due care, causing pain and suffering. However, despite Plaintiff’s description, there is 

no indication that Defendant Ceballo acted with the requisite state of mind. If anything, 

Plaintiff’s allegations that she failed to use “due care” is akin to a negligence claim and cannot 

support an Eighth Amendment violation. Even assuming Defendant Ceballos erred, a finding 

which is not supported by the record, an Eighth Amendment claim may not be premised on even 

gross negligence by a medical professional. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th 

Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Ceballos.

4. Defendants Loadholt, Moon and Kim

a. Prescribed Medication

Plaintiff alleges that he told Defendants Loadholt, Moon and Kim that the prescribed 

medications did not work and caused further harm, but they continued to prescribe the 

medications nonetheless. In other words, Plaintiff disagreed with Defendants’ choice of 

medication because he believed that it did not work and made his condition(s) worse.

“A difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner - or between medical 

professionals - concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate 

indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 

891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986)). Rather, Plaintiff “must show that 

the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances 

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 7 of 11
8

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

and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] 

health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

At most, Plaintiff has shown a difference of opinion. Although he states that he told 

Defendants Loadholt, Moon and Kim that the medications were not working and/or causing 

further harm and that they continued to prescribe the medications, he has not alleged that they 

chose a medically unacceptable course of treatment in conscious disregard of an excessive risk. 

b. Failure to Treat Nerve Pain

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Loadholt and Moon failed to treat his nerve pain 

and/or failed to give him medication for pain. Again, however, despite his allegations, Plaintiff 

has not alleged facts to show that they acted with deliberate indifference. It is clear from 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants continued to treat Plaintiff and continued to provide him 

with medications. While Plaintiff believes that Defendants Moon and Loadholt failed to treat his 

nerve pain, there is no indication that their course of treatment was medically unacceptable in 

conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff.

c. Further Prostate Examination

Finally, Plaintiff appears to disagree with Defendant Moon’s decision to perform a fourth 

prostate examination. As with his previous allegations, Plaintiff has shown that he simply 

disagreed with Defendant Moon’s course of treatment. Given Plaintiff’s symptoms and 

Defendant Moon’s explanation that more serious conditions needed to be ruled out, Plaintiff 

would be hard-pressed to claim that Defendant Moon was deliberately indifferent to a serious 

medical need. While Plaintiff may not have liked the circumstances under which he was forced 

to undergo such an exam, i.e., while shackled in waist chains, such circumstances do not 

transform his claim into an Eighth Amendment violation in the prison context.

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 8 of 11
9

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

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants Loadholt, Moon and 

Kim.

5. Defendants Rouch, Clark, Macias and Zamora 

Defendants Rouch, Clark, Macias and Zamora were involved in adjudicating Plaintiff’s 

appeals. 

Generally, denying a prisoner’s administrative appeal does not cause or contribute to the 

underlying violation. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks 

omitted). However, because prison administrators cannot willfully turn a blind eye to 

constitutional violations being committed by subordinates, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 

(9th Cir. 2006), there may be limited circumstances in which those involved in reviewing an 

inmate appeal can be held liable under section 1983. That circumstance has not been presented 

here. 

Defendant Rouch interviewed Plaintiff in response to his appeal. Plaintiff contends that 

she later denied making certain statements, but this does not form a basis for liability.

Defendants Clark, Macias and Zamora denied Plaintiff’s appeals at various levels. 

However, there is no indication that they knew of a constitutional violation and failed to prevent 

it. In fact, Plaintiff has not stated a viable claim against any Defendants relating to his 

medication care. Absent the presentation of facts sufficient to show that an Eighth Amendment 

violation occurred in the first place, Plaintiff cannot pursue a claim against those who reviewed 

the administrative appeal grieving the underlying denial of medical care. 

Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim against Defendants Rouch, Clark, Macias 

and Zamora.

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 9 of 11
10

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

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. 

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130; Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may 

not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal,

129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations 

omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint, Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474; 

King, 814 F.2d at 567, and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. Therefore, “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original 

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 

(citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 

114 F.3d at 1474.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and 

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 10 of 11
11

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. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:12-cv-00477-DLB Document 21 Filed 11/13/13 Page 11 of 11