Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00528/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00528-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CURTIS MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. D. SOLEIMANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00528-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint filed in the 

U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on February 24, 2016, and transferred 

to this Court on April 15, 2016.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 

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

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 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

2

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

1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Rehabilitation Center at Norco, brings this action 

against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Wasco State Prison. Plaintiff 

names as Defendants M. Soleimani, M.D., and A. Klang, M.D. Plaintiff also names Wasco State 

Prison as a Defendant. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have subjected him to unconstitutional 

conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition on cruel and 

unusual punishment. 

Plaintiff alleges that in June of 2015, while he was housed at Wasco, he became “reCase 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 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

3

infected” with Valley Fever. (ECF No. 1, p. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that doctors at Wasco refused 

to give him a blood test that would slow the progression of the disease. As to the individual 

doctors named in this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that they “conspired together to deny me the 

medical treatment I need to keep me from suffering. Valley Fever never goes away and if left 

untreated will turn fatal cause spinal meningitis.” (Id.) 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Eighth Amendment 

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison 

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 

452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prisoner‟s claim does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment 

violation unless (1) “the prison official deprived the prisoner of the „minimal civilized measure 

of life‟s necessities” and (2) “the prison official „acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.‟” 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051. 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 

732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002)(citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in a deliberately 

indifferent manner unless the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health 

or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Courts have yet to find that exposure 

to Valley Fever spores presents an excessive risk to inmate health.

1. Conditions of Confinement

“[T]o the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to pursue an Eighth Amendment claim for the 

mere fact that he was confined in a location where Valley Fever spores existed which caused him 

to contract Valley Fever, he is advised that no courts have held that exposure to Valley Fever 

spores presents an excessive risk to inmate health.” King v. Avenal State Prison, 2009 WL 

546212, 4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2009); see also Tholmer v. Yates, 2009 WL 174162, 3 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 26, 2009)(“To the extent Plaintiff seeks to raise an Eighth Amendment challenge to the 

general conditions of confinement at PVSP, Plaintiff fails to come forward with evidence that 

[the Warden] is responsible for the conditions of which Plaintiff complains.”) More recently, in 

addressing a claim that CDCR officials are responsible for the contraction of Valley Fever by 

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 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

4

knowingly housing an African American inmate with a history of asthma in an endemic area, it 

has been held that “unless there is something about a prisoner‟s conditions of confinement that 

raises the risk of exposure substantially above the risk experienced by the surrounding 

communities, it cannot be reasoned that the prisoner is involuntarily exposed to a risk that 

society would not tolerate.” Hines v. Yousseff, 2015 WL 164215, *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015). 

Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief based on mere exposure to Valley Fever.

2. Medical Care

To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to allege that he was not provided appropriate 

medical care and treatment, he is advised that where a prisoner‟s Eighth Amendment claim is 

one of inadequate medical care, the prisoner must allege and prove “acts or omissions 

sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Such a claim has two elements: “the seriousness of the 

prisoner‟s medical need and the nature of the defendant‟s response to that need.” McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991). A medical need is serious “if the failure to treat the 

prisoner‟s condition could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain.‟” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). 

If a prisoner establishes the existence of a serious medical need, he must then show that 

prison officials responded to the serious medical need with deliberate indifference. Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 834. “[T]he officials‟ conduct must constitute „unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain‟ before it violates the Eighth Amendment.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745 

(2002)(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Before it can be said that a prisoner‟s civil rights have 

been abridged with regard to medical care, “the indifference to his medical needs must be 

substantial. Mere „indifference,‟ „negligence,‟ or „medical malpractice‟ will not support this 

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980)(citing 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106). See also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Deliberate indifference is “a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” and “requires 

more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner‟s interest or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 

835. 

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 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

5

In order to state any claim for relief due to deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must allege 

facts indicating that each individual defendant was personally aware of a serious risk to his 

health or safety and acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. An allegation that Plaintiff 

suffers from serious medical conditions, of itself, fails to state a claim for relief. 

B. Wasco State Prison

“The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an 

unconsenting state. Though it language might suggest otherwise, the Eleventh Amendment has 

long been construed to extend to suits brought against a state by both its own citizens, as well as 

by citizens of other states.” Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 

(9th Cir. 1991); see also Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Puerto Rico 

Aqueduct Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State 

Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). 

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the 

state itself is named as a defendant. Natural Resources Defense Council v. California 

Department of Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)(concluding that Nevada Department of 

Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles 

Community College District, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Wasco State Prison, as an 

agency of the state of California, is therefore immune from suit.

C. Conspiracy

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Soleimani and Klang conspired to deny Plaintiff medical 

treatment. To state a claim for conspiracy under section 1983, Plaintiff must show the existence 

of an agreement or a meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights, and an actual 

deprivation of those constitutional rights. Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2001).

A conspiracy claim brought under section 1983 requires proof of “an agreement or 

meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights,” Franklin, 312 F.3d at 441 (quoting United 

Steel Workers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation 

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 06/03/16 Page 5 of 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

6

omitted)), and an actual deprivation of constitutional rights, Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1071 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Woodrum v. Woodward County, Oklahoma, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th 

Cir. 1989)). “To be liable, each participant in the conspiracy need not know the exact details of 

the plan, but each participant must at least share the common objective of the conspiracy.” 

Franklin, 312 F.3d at 441 (quoting United Steel Workers, 865 F.2d at 1541. Plaintiff‟s bare 

allegation that Defendants conspired to deny him medical care fails to state a claim for relief. 

Plaintiff must allege some facts indicating an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate his 

constitutional rights, and an actual deprivation of those rights. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. 

Plaintiff‟s conspiracy claim should therefore be dismissed. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. 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 must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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 original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 06/03/16 Page 6 of 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

7

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 to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed February 24, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

an amended complaint; and

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

Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00528-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 06/03/16 Page 7 of 7