Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01742/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01742-2/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

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

Plaintiff Charles Cromer is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint, filed April 11, 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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction on December 3, 2015. (ECF No. 4.) 

CHARLES CROMER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL SONGER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01742-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

[ECF No. 10]

Case 1:15-cv-01742-SAB Document 11 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 5
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

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)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff names Martha Trevino, intake nurse at California 

State Prison-Wasco as the sole Defendant. 

Plaintiff is a 52 year old African-American male who is incarcerated at the California Health 

Care Facility in Stockton. Plaintiff is a hemodialysis patient with anemia, Hx Peritonitis, Neuropathy, 

and eye blindness to both eyes. 

On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff was housed in the Los Angeles County jail in the quality 

management comprehensive care until for Plaintiff‟s serious medical needs. 

Case 1:15-cv-01742-SAB Document 11 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 5
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

On April 16, 2013, Registered Nurse, Angela Regaldo contacted Martha Trevino, a nurse at 

California State Prison in Wasco, and asked nurse Trevino if Wasco could provide Plaintiff dialysis 

care four times a day. Trevino advised nurse Regaldo that Wasco had an on-site dialysis center. 

On April 22, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred to Wasco, and was in need of dialysis treatment. 

Plaintiff became severely sick and was sent to the Wasco prison emergency clinic in need to 

emergency transportation to the nearest outside hospital-Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield, California. 

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 

an inmate‟s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled 

in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 

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, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). 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, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendant Trevino was deliberately indifferent by transferring him from 

the Los Angeles County Jail to the California State Prison in Wasco; however, the fact that Plaintiff 

was transferred to Wasco prison which does not provide peritoneal dialysis at the facility does not 

alone give rise to a level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff essentially argues that his rights under 

the Eighth Amendment were violated because he did not receive daily PD treatment at the prison 

facility in which he was housed. Although the Constitutional mandates that the State provide a 

Case 1:15-cv-01742-SAB Document 11 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 5
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

prisoner adequate medical treatment, such right does not equate to entitlement to receive medical 

treatment in the same facility as the inmate is housed. As stated in the Court‟s February 9, 2016 order, 

the exhibits attached to Plaintiff‟s original complaint demonstrate that he was provided continuous and 

ongoing dialysis treatment. (ECF No. 7, Order at 6.) Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient facts to 

support a finding that Defendant Trevino denied, delayed, or interfered with Plaintiff‟s care and 

treatment. The fact that Plaintiff disagrees with the medical care he is receiving is not sufficient to 

state a cognizable constitutional violation. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for 

deliberate indifference based on the lack of dialysis at the facility in which he is housed. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court finds that Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint fails to state any cognizable claims 

upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. Plaintiff was previously notified of the applicable 

legal standards and the first amended complaint presents fewer factual allegations, and Plaintiff simply 

re-states his claim that Defendant Trevino was deliberately indifferent by misstating that Wasco 

facility had on-site dialysis treatment. Based upon the allegations in Plaintiff‟s original and first 

amended, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff is unable to allege any additional facts that would 

support a claim for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and further 

amendment would be futile. See Hartmann v. CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district 

court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”) Based on the nature of the 

deficiencies at issue, the Court finds that further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th. Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446-1449 (9th Cir. 1987).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01742-SAB Document 11 Filed 05/18/16 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed for Plaintiff‟s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted;

2. This action count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01742-SAB Document 11 Filed 05/18/16 Page 5 of 5