Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00359/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00359-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEON L. JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. KATAVICH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00359-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 complaint filed March 16, 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 “fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on March 30, 2016. (ECF No. 4.)

Case 1:16-cv-00359-AWI-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/19/16 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

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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). 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 Service, 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

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Soledad State Prison, brings this civil rights action against Defendant 

correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Wasco State Prison, where the conduct at issue 

occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants A. Johal, M.D., and Warden J. Katavich. Plaintiff also 

names as a Defendant California Health Care Services Deputy Director for Policy and Risk 

Management J. Lewis. 

Plaintiff alleges that on September 21, 2015, while being examined by medical staff, 

Defendant Johal violated Plaintiff‟s patient confidentiality. Plaintiff specifically alleges that 

after looking at his medical record, Dr. Johal performed an examination of Plaintiff‟s genital 

Case 1:16-cv-00359-AWI-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/19/16 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

area, then “indiscreetly blurted out her findings.” (ECF No. 1, ¶IV.) Plaintiff alleges that the 

examination room door was left open, and inmates and correctional staff could hear. Plaintiff 

alleges that Dr. Johal continued to violate Plaintiff‟s privacy by leaving the door open, despite 

the fact that other physicians kept their examination room doors closed. Plaintiff does not allege 

any conduct by Defendants Katavich or Lewis. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Privacy

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against the 

disclosure of personal matters, Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 598-99 (1977), which “clearly 

encompasses medical information and its confidentiality,” Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence 

Berkeley Lab.,135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). “[T]he right to 

informational privacy applies both when an individual chooses not to disclose highly sensitive 

information to the government and when an individual seeks assurance that such information 

will not be made public.” Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Lawall, 307 F.3d 783, 

789-90 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). It is the latter situation which is at issue in this action.

The privacy protection afforded medical information is not absolute, and may be 

infringed upon a showing of proper governmental interest. Lawall, 307 F.3d at 790 (citations 

omitted). The governmental interest in disclosure must advance a legitimate state interest and 

the government‟s action must be narrowly tailored to meet the legitimate interest. Roe v. Sherry, 

91 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotations and citations omitted). In making the 

determination whether the governmental interest outweighs the individual‟s privacy interest, 

courts must balance the following factors: (1) the type of information, (2) the potential harm in 

non-consensual disclosure, (3) the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure, 

(4) the degree of need for access, and (5) whether there is an express statutory mandate, 

articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest militating toward access. Tucson 

Woman‟s Clinic v. Eden, 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations regarding the disclosure of private medical 

Case 1:16-cv-00359-AWI-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/19/16 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

information to be vague. Plaintiff alleges, at most, that the door to the examination room was 

open, and Dr. Johal “indiscreetly blurted out her findings” regarding a genital examination of 

Plaintiff. Such an allegation, of itself, fails to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff must allege 

sufficient facts from which the Court can make a determination using the above factors. This 

claim should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended 

complaint that corrects this deficiency.

B. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff fails to allege any conduct by Defendants Katavich and Lewis. Government 

officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat 

superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a government official cannot be 

held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead that 

the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at 673. In other 

words, to state claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must allege facts linking Defendants 

Katavich and Lewis with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 

Plaintiff‟s federal rights. Plaintiff has failed to do so. These Defendants should therefore be 

dismissed.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 1:16-cv-00359-AWI-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/19/16 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

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed March 16, 2016, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

first amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

the Court will dismissed this action, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and 

to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00359-AWI-SAB Document 6 Filed 08/19/16 Page 5 of 5