Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00683/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00683-0/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

DONALD JOSHUA SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHAUDHRY UZMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00683-TLN-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

ECF Nos. 1 & 4 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against several medical providers at the 

California Health Care Facility and San Joaquin General Hospital. ECF No. 1 at 2. For the 

reasons stated hereafter, however, his claims are non-cognizable as currently articulated. I will 

give him leave to amend. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 

4. 

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

Case 2:24-cv-00683-TLN-JDP Document 7 Filed 07/17/24 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

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that his medical care for liver cancer and a related skin disease has been 

inadequate. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. He names numerous medical providers and broadly alleges that 

his treatment outcomes have been poor and his prognosis is negative. Id. He fails, however, to 

allege that any of the defendants, by their action or inaction, acted with deliberate indifference to 

his medical needs. He alleges that defendants have failed to cure his cancer, but a negative 

treatment outcome is not automatically indicative of deliberate indifference. Instead:

[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or 

treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical 

mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice 

does not become a constitutional violation merely because the 

victim is a prisoner. In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner 

must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 

Case 2:24-cv-00683-TLN-JDP Document 7 Filed 07/17/24 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

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Plaintiff may amend his complaint to better explain 

how each of the defendants acted with deliberate indifference.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint. See 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended 

complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file an amended 

complaint that complies with this order. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that this action be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order.

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00683-TLN-JDP Document 7 Filed 07/17/24 Page 3 of 3