Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01899/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01899-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS MANUEL FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. SOTO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01899-SKO (PC)

SECOND SCREENING ORDER 

DISMISSING ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

UNDER SECTION 1983

(Doc. 14)

Second Screening Order

I. Background

Plaintiff Carlos Manuel Flores (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 1, 2014. On 

October 28, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to 

state a claim under section 1983. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2015. 

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court 

Case 1:14-cv-01899-SKO Document 15 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 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

2

shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

III. Discussion

A. Summary of Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan State Prison in San Diego, 

California. The events at issue in this action occurred at California State Prison-Corcoran (“CSPCorcoran”) in 2014. Plaintiff brings this action against registered nurse V. Soto and Dr. Sao, 

M.D., employed at CSP-Corcoran, and against Dr. Ahmed Mushtaq, M.D., and registered nurse 

Jane Doe employed at Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield.

1

 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages for the 

 

1 Defendants Mushtaq and Doe were employed by Mercy Hospital rather than the state and “the presumption is that 

conduct by private actors is not state action.” Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 922 (9th 

Cir. 2011); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-50, 108 S.Ct. 2250 (1988). However, given Plaintiff’s failure to state a 

claim, discussed in subsection B, the Court does not further address this deficiency. 

Case 1:14-cv-01899-SKO Document 15 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 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

3

violation of his right to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution.

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on April 22, 2014, Defendant Soto, under 

the supervision of Defendant Sao, improperly inserted an IV into his right arm, which caused him 

to develop severe cellulitis. Plaintiff alleges that the failure to respond to his acute pain 

demonstrated malice, aforethought, and the denial of adequate medical care. Plaintiff alleges that 

fluid built up around the outside of his vein, which caused a potentially life threatening condition

given that a blood clot could have developed and traveled to his organs. Plaintiff further alleges 

that during his hospitalization at CSP-Corcoran and at Mercy Hospital, all the defendants ignored 

his complaint of acute pain in his arm at the IV site and his request for medical care.

B. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claim

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. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 

section 1983. The allegation that Defendant Soto improperly inserted an IV does not support a 

claim of deliberate indifference, and mere negligence does not suffice to state a claim under 

Case 1:14-cv-01899-SKO Document 15 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 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

4

section 1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1977); Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-

88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. Even assuming Plaintiff suffered from a serious medical need with 

respect to the cellulitis and/or pain, his allegations do not support a claim that the care he received 

while hospitalized was constitutionally deficient; that is, that the course of treatment chosen by the 

defendants was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the defendants chose this 

course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s health. Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 

section 1983. Plaintiff was previously provided with notice of the deficiencies in his claims and 

an opportunity to amend. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 

1987). Based on the nature of the deficiencies in his amended complaint, further leave to amend is 

not warranted. 

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a 

claim under section 1983, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01899-SKO Document 15 Filed 11/30/15 Page 4 of 4