Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00510-11/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 

CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint after the original complaint was 

screened and found to not state any claims for relief. ECF No. 22. After receiving several 

extensions of time, plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint. ECF No. 39. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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 

“frivolous, malicious, or 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). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 10
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 

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘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, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 10
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 

II. First Amended Complaint 

 The first amended complaint alleges that defendants Lynch, Bobbala, Soltanian-Zadeh, 

Ma, Uddin, Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra violated plaintiff’s rights under the First and Eighth 

Amendment. ECF No. 39. 

Plaintiff alleges that July 21, 2017, Soltanian-Zadeh told plaintiff that he did not deserve 

his cane because he had filed an appeal. Id. at 6. Soltanian-Zadeh then took plaintiff’s cane and 

discontinued all of his disability verifications and chronos, all of which appear related to 

plaintiff’s mobility. Id. at 6-7. Ten days later, plaintiff went on a hunger strike and was 

interviewed regarding the hunger strike by Bobbala, at which time she told him that she would 

reinstate his disability verifications if he stopped his hunger strike. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff stated that 

he would only stop the hunger strike once everything was reinstated, but Bobbala refused to 

reinstate the verifications until plaintiff stopped his hunger strike. Id. at 6. Later, another doctor 

manipulated plaintiff into discontinuing his hunger strike by promising, among other things, to 

reinstate plaintiff’s disability accommodations, but instead failed to record the agreement and 

updated plaintiff’s medical records to say that he did not have sarcoidosis disease. Id. When 

plaintiff told Bobbala about the agreement, she told him there was nothing she could do because 

he does not have sarcoidosis disease. Id. 

In May 2019, plaintiff experienced an extreme bout of pain that caused him to fall to the 

floor and urinate and defecate on himself which he believes was caused by his azathioprine (an 

immunosuppressant). Id. at 8. He reported this experience to Ma and also reported an injury to 

his elbow. Id. at 8-9. Ma ordered an elbow x-ray and recorded that plaintiff reported elbow pain 

and had decreased range of motion, but that plaintiff denied injury, numbness, or weakness. Id. at 

9. Plaintiff appears to allege that the notation that the denied injury, numbness, or weakness is 

untrue. Id. Ma then asked plaintiff why he had medical single-cell status when he did not fit the 

criteria. Id. Plaintiff told Ma that he did fit the criteria because of his chronic sarcoidosis disease 

with pulmonary sarcoid lung disease and white blood cell disorder. Id. When Ma saw plaintiff 

for a follow-up to some testing, Ma told plaintiff he had osteopenia but did not explain what that 

was or where plaintiff had it. Id. at 10. Ma also told plaintiff he had a mild heart condition but 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 10
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 

did not specify that plaintiff had seven different heart conditions. Id. When Ma once again asked 

plaintiff about his medical single-cell status, plaintiff began to believe that Ma had “done 

something” to his azathioprine so that he could discontinue plaintiff’s single-cell status once he 

stopped taking the medication. Id. Ma ultimately discontinued plaintiff’s medical-single cell 

status, stating that he did not meet the criteria. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff submitted multiple health 

care grievances, presumably about Ma’s treatment, that were denied by Bobbala. Id. at 9. 

With respect to the other defendants, plaintiff alleges that Lynch is the warden of the 

prison and is therefore responsible “for the daily operational function and adherence to the policy 

and procedures,” including medical and condones the denial of medical care. Id. at 5. Uddin and 

Rattan are both doctors who allegedly falsified plaintiff’s medical records and denied him 

“adequate medical care and treatment and attempt of murder on [his] life.” Id. at 11. Roth and 

Ybarra are correctional staff who allegedly denied him medical single-cell status and a medical 

transfer to a medical prison. Id. 

III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

A. Deliberate Indifference 

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate 

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This requires plaintiff 

to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and 

(2) “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Id. (some internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

Deliberate indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 

1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendant Soltanian-Zadeh and Bobbala were 

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when Soltanian-Zadeh discontinued 

plaintiff’s disability verifications and chronos for non-medical reasons and when Bobbala 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 4 of 10
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 

refused to reinstate them unless plaintiff stopped his hunger strike. These defendants will be 

required to respond to the complaint. 

B. Retaliation 

Plaintiff has also sufficiently alleged that Soltanian-Zadeh’s discontinuation of his 

disability verifications and chronos was retaliatory, see Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-

68 (9th Cir. 2005) (retaliation claim must include allegation that defendant took adverse action 

against plaintiff because of his protected conduct and that the action chilled plaintiff’s exercise of 

First Amendment rights and lacked legitimate correctional goal), and Soltanian-Zadeh will be 

required to respond to this claim. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

A. Defendant Ma 

A difference of opinion between inmate and prison medical personnel—or between 

medical professionals—regarding the appropriate course of treatment does not by itself amount to 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; Sanchez v. Vild, 

891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). To establish that a difference of opinion rises to the level of 

deliberate indifference, plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was 

medically unacceptable under the circumstances.” Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff has alleged, at most, a difference of opinion as to whether he qualifies for 

medical single-cell status. It is unclear from the allegations that plaintiff qualifies for a medical 

order for single-cell status, and even if he does qualify for such status, the allegations reflect that 

Ma does not believe plaintiff qualifies and plaintiff has failed to identify what excessive risk to 

his health Ma ignored in cancelling his single-cell status. Plaintiff’s claims regarding Ma’s 

treatment of his elbow and failure to advise plaintiff of his medical conditions to the degree of 

specificity he believes appropriate also fail to state claims for relief. The allegations show that 

Ma examined plaintiff’s elbow and ordered an x-ray, and plaintiff fails to establish that Ma’s 

failure to inform him of the specifics of his conditions was inappropriate or created an excessive 

risk to plaintiff’s health. Finally, the claim that Ma did something to plaintiff’s medication also 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 5 of 10
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 

6 

fails to state a claim for relief because it is based on pure speculation. 

B. Grievances 

With respect to plaintiff’s claims that Bobbala denied his grievances, prison 

administrators cannot willfully turn a blind eye to constitutional violations being committed by 

subordinates. See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1098 (prison administrators “are liable for deliberate 

indifference when they knowingly fail to respond to an inmate’s requests for help” (citations 

omitted)). Therefore, an individual who denies an inmate appeal and who had the authority and 

opportunity to prevent an ongoing constitutional violation could potentially be subject to liability 

if the individual knew about an existing or impending violation and failed to prevent it. See id. 

However, plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for relief because they do not show that his 

grievances contained information that would have put Bobbala on notice of an ongoing 

constitutional violation such that she could have intervened. 

C. Personal Involvement 

“Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant,” 

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980)), and “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient,” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(citations omitted). Because plaintiff makes only conclusory allegations that defendants Uddin, 

Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra violated his rights, he fails to state a claim for relief against them. It is 

further unclear how Roth and Ybarra, as correctional staff, would have had the authority to make 

decisions regarding plaintiff’s medical status. 

With respect to Lynch, “[t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983,” 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted), and plaintiff has not 

alleged facts showing either Lynch’s personal involvement in the alleged violations or a causal 

connection between Lynch’s conduct and the violation, see Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). It appears that 

Lynch has been named as a defendant based solely on his position as warden, which is 

insufficient to state a claim for relief. 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 6 of 10
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 

7 

V. Leave to Amend 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the complaint does not state a claim 

against Bobbala for denying his grievance or any cognizable claims against Ma, Lynch, Uddin, 

Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra. However, it appears that plaintiff may be able to allege facts to remedy 

this and he will be given one final opportunity to amend the complaint if he desires. 

 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Soltanian-Zadeh and Bobbala on his 

claims that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and that SoltanianZadeh retaliated against him or he may delay serving any defendant and amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff will be required to complete and return the attached notice advising the court how 

he wishes to proceed. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he will be given thirty days to 

file an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to proceed on his cognizable claims against 

defendants Soltanian-Zadeh and Bobbala without amending the complaint, the court will proceed 

to serve the complaint. A decision to go forward without amending the complaint will be 

considered a voluntarily dismissal without prejudice of his claim against Bobbala for denying his 

grievance and all claims against Ma, Lynch, Uddin, Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 

There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or 

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 7 of 10
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 

8 

1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 

in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, 

any prior complaints no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended 

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. 

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 

not. You have stated a claim for deliberate indifference against defendants Soltanian-Zadeh and 

Bobbala based on the revocation and failure to reinstate your disability verifications and chronos 

and against Soltanian-Zadeh for retaliation. You have not stated a claim against Bobbala based 

on the denial of your grievances because you have not shown that she was aware of an ongoing 

violation and failed to intervene. You also have not stated any claims against Ma, Lynch, Uddin, 

Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra because you have not alleged any specific facts about what they did that 

you believe violated your rights. 

You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your claims for 

deliberate indifference against defendants Soltanian-Zadeh and Bobbala based on the revocation 

and failure to reinstate your disability verifications and chronos and for retaliation against 

Soltanian-Zadeh, and voluntarily dismiss the other claims, or (2) try to amend the complaint. If 

you want to go forward without amending the complaint, you will be voluntarily dismissing 

without prejudice your claim against Bobbala based on the denial of your grievances and all 

claims against Ma, Lynch, Uddin, Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra. If you choose to file a second 

amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to bring. Once an amended complaint is 

filed, the court will not look at any information in the original complaint. Any claims and 

information not in the second amended complaint will not be considered. You must 

complete the attached notification showing what you want to do and return it to the court. Once 

the court receives the notice, it will issue an order telling you what you need to do next (i.e., file 

an amended complaint or wait for defendants to be served). 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 8 of 10
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 

9 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s allegation that Bobbala denied his grievances and his allegations against 

Ma, Lynch, Uddin, Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra do not state claims for which relief can be granted. 

2. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his claims for deliberate 

indifference against defendants Soltanian-Zadeh and Bobbala based on the revocation and failure 

to reinstate his disability verifications and chronos and for retaliation against Soltanian-Zadeh as 

set forth in Section III above, or to amend the complaint. 

3. Within fourteen days of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or 

whether he wants to file a second amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, the 

court will assume that he is choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and will 

recommend dismissal without prejudice of the claims against Bobbala for denying his grievances 

and all claims against Ma, Lynch, Uddin, Rattan, Roth, and Ybarra. 

DATED: October 16, 2023 

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 9 of 10
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 

CARLOS MANWELL DAWSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0510 KJM AC P 

NOTICE OF ELECTION 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his claims for deliberate indifference against 

defendants Soltanian-Zadeh and Bobbala based on the revocation and failure to reinstate 

his disability verifications and chronos and for retaliation against Soltanian-Zadeh without 

amending the complaint. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending 

the complaint he is voluntarily dismissing without prejudice his claims against Bobbala 

for denying his grievances and all claims against Ma, Lynch, Uddin, Rattan, Roth, and 

Ybarra pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 Carlos Manwell Dawson 

 Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:21-cv-00510-DC-AC Document 42 Filed 10/16/23 Page 10 of 10