Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01717/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01717-2/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

RICHARD JOSEPH GOSZTYLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. LY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-1717 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 against employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On 

September 29, 2021, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court found that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted and gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an 

amended complaint.

As plaintiff already knows, 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). 

Case 2:21-cv-01717-DC-CKD Document 14 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 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

2

After reviewing plaintiff’s amended complaint, the court finds that it fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted under federal law. The amended complaint must be dismissed. 

The court will, however, grant plaintiff one more opportunity to state a claim upon which he can 

proceed in a second amended complaint.

As in plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff complains about dental care. With respect to 

claim 1, plaintiff’s allegations are vague. In order to state a claim upon which plaintiff might 

proceed, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can 

be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection 

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). Plaintiff’s allegation on page 4 of his amended complaint that “each defendant had 

knowledge of my need for dental care and failed to provide treatment of any kind” is not 

sufficient.

As for claim 2, the allegations do not amount to deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). Plaintiff complains about the 

manner in which treatment was provided, but his allegations amount to no more than a difference 

of opinion which is not sufficient to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). “Deliberate indifference” can be shown 

by an intent to harm or actions which amount to no treatment. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

It appears that plaintiff is attempting to raise claims under California law. Plaintiff is 

informed that before he may proceed on a claim arising under California law in this court, he 

must comply with the terms of the California Tort Claims Act, and then plead compliance. See

Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq.; Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 1470, 1477 (9th 

Cir. 1995). Complaints must present facts demonstrating compliance, rather than simply 

conclusions suggesting as much. Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (2007).

Finally, plaintiff is informed again that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order 

to make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.

Case 2:21-cv-01717-DC-CKD Document 14 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended complaint must bear 

the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure 

to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed.

Dated: March 8, 2022

1

gosz1717.14(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01717-DC-CKD Document 14 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 3