Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07496/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07496-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ISRAEL ONTIVEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOMINGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07496-VKD 

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(A); 

GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

Pro se plaintiff Israel Ontiveros, a state prisoner at the California Medical Facility 

(“CMF”) in Vacaville, filed this civil rights action against defendants Dominguez (Senior MTA), 

Wang (MTA), Correctional Officer Aguilar, and a “Jane Doe” officer based on their actions while 

Mr. Ontiveros was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). Dkt. No. 1. Mr. Ontiveros 

has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 5. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

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

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). 

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 

Case 5:19-cv-07496-VKD Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Claims

Mr. Ontiveros claims that on February 28, 2019, he was agitated and had high anxiety. 

Dkt. No. 1 at 3. He requested a “PRN” [medication] to help calm down because he felt an 

“episode” coming and was trying to prevent himself from self-harm, but he was ignored. Id. Mr.

Ontiveros then banged and split his head open. Id. MTA Singh, not named as defendant, pressed 

the alarm and took Mr. Ontiveros to medical where he refused treatment. Id. He was placed in an 

observation cell with all his clothing on, and then on “1 to 1 watch.” Id. Mr. Ontiveros continued 

to ask for medication but was ignored. Id. He then started to rip his shirt and was eventually 

placed in restraints shirtless. Id. He was taken to medical where they put a smock to cover his 

torso before escorting him to a cell. Id. At that point, he told defendant Dominguez, Senior MTA, 

that he was not going to take his clothes off. Id. As Dominguez “grabbed [his] buttocks to take 

[his] shorts off,” Mr. Ontiveros was “dropped” by defendants Aguilar, Jane Doe, MTA Wang, and 

Dominguez, and his buttock was exposed. Id. Mr. Ontiveros states, “they caused injury.” Id. 

Mr. Ontiveros seeks damages for “medical indifference and neglect” as well as the use of 

excessive force. Id. Liberally construing the complaint, Mr. Ontiveros appears to be attempting to 

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976), and for 

excessive force, Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). However, Mr. Ontiveros fails to 

state sufficient facts to proceed on any claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

First, with respect to Mr. Ontiveros’s medical needs, a determination of “deliberate 

indifference” involves an examination of two elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical 

need, and the nature of the defendant’s response to that need. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 

1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). A “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s 

condition could result in further significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain.” Id. at 1059 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Serious medical needs may include mental 

Case 5:19-cv-07496-VKD Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

health care. See Doty v. Cty. of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994) (mentally ill prisoner 

may establish unconstitutional treatment by showing that officials have been deliberately 

indifferent to his serious medical needs). Mr. Ontiveros does not specifically allege that at the 

time of the underlying incident, he suffered from a serious mental health condition that required

PRN medication. But even if the Court assumes that Mr. Ontiveros suffered from a serious mental 

health condition, he fails to connect the deprivation of mental health treatment, i.e., PRN 

medication, with any named defendant. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s actions both actually and 

proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & 

Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1085 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of §1983 if he does an 

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 

F.2d at 633. Mr. Ontiveros alleges generally that his requests for PRN were ignored. See Dkt. 

No. 1 at 3at 2. He does not allege that defendants Dominguez, Aguilar, Wang, or “Jane Doe” are 

responsible for the lack of PRN medication that led to injury. The Court grants Mr. Ontiveros

leave to amend to attempt to state sufficient facts to establish that these defendants, or any newly 

named defendant, are responsible for the alleged deprivation of medical treatment for serious 

mental health needs. 

With respect to excessive force, whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive 

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the deliberate indifference standard is inappropriate. 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). Instead, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was 

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to 

cause harm. Id. at 6–7; Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320–21. Mr. Ontiveros alleges that defendants 

“dropped” him while Dominguez was attempting to pull off his shorts. See Dkt. No. 1 at 3. 

Furthermore, Dominguez was acting in response to Mr. Ontiveros’s refusal to take off his clothes. 

Id. There is no allegation that defendants acted with the intent to “maliciously and sadistically to 

cause harm.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 6–7. The Court grants Mr. Ontiveros leave to amend to 

Case 5:19-cv-07496-VKD Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

attempt to state sufficient facts alleging that each defendant was acting with the appropriate intent 

to support an excessive force claim. 

Furthermore, Mr. Ontiveros seeks damages for “neglect.” See Dkt. No. 1 at 3. However, 

neither negligence nor gross negligence is actionable under § 1983 in the prison context. See 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835–36, n.4 (1994); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 

1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (gross negligence insufficient to state claim for denial of medical needs to 

prisoner). Mr. Ontiveros should keep this in mind in preparing an amended complaint. 

Lastly, with respect to defendant “Jane Doe,” the use of Doe pseudonyms to identify a 

defendant is not favored in the Ninth Circuit. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th 

Cir. 1980); Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 406 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1968). However, situations 

may arise where the identity of alleged defendants cannot be known prior to the filing of a 

complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery 

to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover their 

identities or that the complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 

642; Velasquez v. Senko, 643 F. Supp. 1172, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 1986). Mr. Ontiveros is advised that 

if he is unable to identify defendant “Jane Doe” by her true name in the amended complaint, he 

shall be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendant if the amended 

complaint proceeds past an initial screening. Id.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, after screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

the Court finds that the complaint as pled fails to state a claim as to all defendants. Mr. Ontiveros 

may file an amended complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies discussed above by no later 

than April 15, 2020. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used 

in this order, Case No. C 19-cv-07496 VKD, and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the 

first page. If using the court form complaint, Mr. Ontiveros must answer all the questions on the 

form in order for the action to proceed. 

Mr. Ontiveros is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint, 

the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent. Ramirez v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 

Case 5:19-cv-07496-VKD Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). Consequently, claims not included in an amended complaint are no 

longer claims and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See 

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

If Mr. Ontiveros fails to file an amended complaint in the time, or the amended complaint 

fails to cure all defects described above, the Court will issue an order reassigning the case to a 

district judge with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in part for the reasons 

described above.

The Clerk of the Court shall include two copies of the Court’s form complaint with a copy 

of this order to Mr. Ontiveros.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07496-VKD Document 8 Filed 03/18/20 Page 5 of 5