Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02940/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02940-0/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 

LEROY NAPOLEON JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRANK KENNEDY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2940-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3). 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

Screening Standards 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

Case 2:18-cv-02940-WBS-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 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 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Screening Order 

 The complaint concerns the medical care, or lack thereof, that plaintiff received at Mule 

Creek State Prison following the surgical removal of a cyst on December 18, 2017 at San Joaquin 

General Hospital. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that the doctors at San Joaquin General 

should have sent him to an after-care facility until his wound – which required seven stitches – 

was completely healed. Id. at 3, 7. Instead, plaintiff was returned to his cell and his after-care 

Case 2:18-cv-02940-WBS-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 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 

consisted of nothing more than a “three day lay in.” Id. He received no pain medication despite 

excruciating pain, had no donut to sit on or a mobility vest, did not see a doctor or nurse for ten 

days, did not have his dressings changed for ten days, did not receive sitz baths, and had to walk 

to breakfast and lunch with bloody, smelly fluid leaking from his stitches. Id. at 3-5. The doctors 

at San Joaquin apparently e-mailed unspecified after-care instructions to plaintiff’s primary care 

physician at Mule Creek, but the physician told plaintiff that she had not received any such 

instructions. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that his pain persisted for over five months and that he 

endured at least two more lengthy periods of time between dressing changes. Id. at 4, 6. 

Ultimately, plaintiff’s wound became infected and the stitches were not removed until April. Id. 

at 6. According to plaintiff, “[a]ll of the defendants in this complaint blamed each other for all of 

the mistakes made.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to 

medical needs claims and state law negligence claims against various physicians and “Doe” 

defendants. 

To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must be aware of facts from which the 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the 

inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Negligence will not support a cause of 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 

1980) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-106 (1976)); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 

F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with the decision made by the physicians at San Joaquin General 

Hospital to return him to Mule Creek is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See 

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A difference of opinion does not amount to a 

deliberate indifference to [the inmate’s] medical needs.”). And the claim against his primary care 

physician, as currently articulated, sounds in negligence rather than deliberate indifference. That 

is, plaintiff does not allege that his primary care physician intentionally ignored any after-care 

instructions, only that she did not know about them. See Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 

726 F.3d 1062, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013) (negligence or gross negligence does not constitute 

deliberate indifference). If plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must file an amended complaint which 

Case 2:18-cv-02940-WBS-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 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 

allege facts showing that a specific defendant knowingly denied him adequate medical care 

following his surgery. If plaintiff complained about inadequate medical care, he should allege 

when he complained, to whom he complained, and how his complaints were responded to. 

Claims against “Doe” defendants cannot survive screening because unknown persons cannot be 

served with process until they are identified by their real names and the court will not investigate 

the names and identities of unnamed defendants. 

Lastly, the court notes that plaintiff’s request for relief includes a request to be 

immediately released from custody. ECF No. 1 at 11. Any claim seeking such relief can only be 

brought by way of a habeas action and not as part of a civil rights complaint. See Nettles v. 

Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927-931 (9th Cir. 2016) (claims which would result in immediate release 

if successful fall within core of habeas corpus). 

Leave to Amend 

 Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any 

amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a 

substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 

(9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an 

act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes 

the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so 

closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 

George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as he was warned above, may he bring multiple, unrelated claims 

against more than one defendant. Id.

 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

Case 2:18-cv-02940-WBS-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 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 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith; 

 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 

days from the date of service of this order; and 

 4. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in 

the dismissal of this action for the reasons stated herein. 

DATED: February 24, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02940-WBS-JDP Document 10 Filed 02/25/20 Page 5 of 5