Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00999/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00999-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BALAGSO, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00999 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Alejandro Garcia (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 

2, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The action was 

transferred to this Court on June 24, 2014. 

Pursuant to Court order, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015. He 

names North Kern State Prison LVNs M.V. Balagso, Purdy and Jimenez as Defendants.1

A. SCREENING 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 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). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on August 25, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/17/15 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

“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). 

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 

969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison. The events at issue occurred 

while Plaintiff was incarcerated at North Kern State Prison.

Plaintiff alleges that on September 2, 2013, Plaintiff and his cellmate told Officers Corona 

and Flores that his blood sugar was a little low and that he wanted to be seen by medical. Officer 

Flores called medical and told Plaintiff that medical staff was not there, but that he would be seen 

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/17/15 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

by third watch medical. Plaintiff alleges that he then had a seizure. His cellmate gave him 

“jellies” to raise his blood sugar and called “man down.” ECF No. 19, at 3. They told Officers 

Corona and Flores about his seizure, and the officers called medical. Medical told the officers that 

if Plaintiff did not stop complaining, he would get a 115. 

Sometime later, Plaintiff had another seizure and was taken to medical. 

On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff asked Defendant Purdy why she and other medical staff 

refused to go and treat him for low blood sugar. Defendant Purdy told Plaintiff that it was about 

to be shift change and they weren’t going to deal with him. Defendant Purdy then began to laugh. 

Plaintiff and Defendant Purdy spoke about Plaintiff’s life “not being a joke,” and she tried to 

apologize. ECF No. 19, at 4. Plaintiff contends that the members of the medical staff were found 

guilty of violating one or more CDCR policies.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Balagso was also asked the same question, but she was 

quiet and tried to apologize.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Defendant Jimenez

As explained above, Plaintiff must link each Defendant to actions that allegedly violated

his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to survive screening, 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. 

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

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Although Plaintiff includes Defendant Jimenez in the caption, he does not include this 

Defendant in the discussion of his claims. Plaintiff has therefore failed to link Defendant Jimenez 

to any unlawful conduct and he fails to state a claim against Defendant Jimenez.

2. Eighth Amendment

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/17/15 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

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 

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).

a. Defendant Purdy

Plaintiff alleges that he asked Defendant Purdy why she refused to go to his cell and 

treatment him when he needed medication attention, and that Defendant Purdy told him that the 

shift was about to change and that they did not want to “deal with” Plaintiff. ECF No. 19, at 4. 

These facts are sufficient, at the pleading stage, to demonstrate that Defendant Purdy purposely 

failed to respond to Plaintiff’s serious medical need. However, Plaintiff does not allege any harm 

as a result, and he therefore fails to meet the second element of a deliberate indifference claimharm caused by the indifference.

Therefore, while Plaintiff may ultimately be able to state a claim against Defendant Purdy, 

he has failed to allege any resulting harm. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend.

b. Defendant Balagso

Plaintiff alleges that when he asked Defendant Balagso why she did not respond to his 

calls for treatment, she remained quiet and tried to apologize. Under these facts, Plaintiff fails to 

show that Defendant Balagso acted with the requisite state of mind, i.e., that she “[knew] of and 

disregard[ed] an excessive risk to [plaintiff’s] health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Plaintiff 

also fails to allege any harm as a result of the alleged delay.

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/17/15 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

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against Defendant Balagso. He will be permitted to 

amend, but he should only amend if he can do so in good faith.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state any claims for 

which relief may be granted. Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to amend. 

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 federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 

2101 (2012). 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 supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

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

amended complaint; and

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: July 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00999-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 5