Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01428/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01428-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CAST,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN D’AGOSTINI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1428 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 10, 2023, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to 

amend. On September 7, 2023, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

As discussed below, plaintiff states potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims as to 

defendants Chapman and Cameron and is granted leave to amend as to defendant Jail.

Eighth Amendment Claims

The court reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint and, for the limited purposes of 

§ 1915A screening, finds that it states potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants Dr. Ross Chapman and Nurse J. Cameron. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Chapman and Cameron and pursue 

his claims against only those defendants, or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to 

state a cognizable claim against defendant jail. 

Case 2:23-cv-01428-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/03/23 Page 1 of 6
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

Second Claim

In claim two, in addition to deliberate indifference, plaintiff marks “basic necessities,”

“access to the court” and “other” - “receiving proper paperwork in a timely manner.” (ECF No. 7 

at 4.) Plaintiff alleges it took him months to receive grievance forms. However, prisoners do not 

have a “separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison [or jail] grievance procedure.” 

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 

(9th Cir. 1988)). Even the lack of, or the failure of prison officials to properly implement, an 

administrative appeals process within the prison does not raise constitutional concerns. Mann, 

855 F.2d at 640. Thus, plaintiff cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim as to the failure of jail 

staff to timely provide grievance forms. 

Prisoners do have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 

343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), limited in part on other grounds by

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. The right of access to the courts is limited to non-frivolous direct 

criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and § 1983 actions. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 n.3, 

354-55. In order to frame a claim of a denial of the right to access the courts, a prisoner must 

establish that he has suffered “actual injury,” a jurisdictional requirement derived from the 

standing doctrine. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349. An “actual injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to 

contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a 

claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348 (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Alvarez v. 

Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that “[f]ailure to show that a ‘non-frivolous 

legal claim had been frustrated’ is fatal” to a claim for denial of access to legal materials) (citing 

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.4).

Here, plaintiff does not allege he sustained an actual injury to his access to the courts; 

indeed, he is pursuing his deliberate indifference claims in this action. Thus, plaintiff also fails to 

state a cognizable access to the courts claim. It does not appear that plaintiff can amend to state a 

claim based on his allegations.

////

////

Case 2:23-cv-01428-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/03/23 Page 2 of 6
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

Defendant Jail 

The court finds that the complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendant

South Lake Tahoe Jail. Plaintiff included no charging allegations as to the Jail. Thus, the claim 

against the Jail is dismissed with leave to amend. Because plaintiff included no specific 

allegations as to the Jail, it is unclear whether plaintiff can amend his pleading to state a 

cognizable claim. However, plaintiff is granted leave to amend as to the Jail. 

Plaintiff’s Options

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Chapman and Cameron, against 

whom he stated potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for relief, then within thirty 

days plaintiff must so elect on the appended form. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s 

election as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendant Jail without prejudice. 

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against 

defendant Jail, he has thirty days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint.

Leave to Amend

Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint must clearly identify each defendant and 

the action that defendant took that violated constitutional rights. The court is not required to 

review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named defendant. 

The charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint so defendants have fair 

notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting.

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

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). 

A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim 

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in the complaint and give plaintiff an 

Case 2:23-cv-01428-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/03/23 Page 3 of 6
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

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31. While detailed factual allegations are 

not required, “[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)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 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. The plausibility 

standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for 

more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. 

Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a 

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and 

plausibility of entitlement to relief.

Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions 

can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are 

not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

Local Rule 220; See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as nonexistent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 

pleading is superseded.

Finally, plaintiff is not granted leave to add new claims or new defendants to this action. 

Rather, plaintiff is granted leave to amend solely as to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim 

against defendant Jail. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The claim against defendant South Lake Tahoe Jail is dismissed with leave to amend. 

Within thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state 

cognizable claims against this defendant. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint.

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state potentially cognizable 

claims against defendants Chapman and Cameron. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If plaintiff chooses 

Case 2:23-cv-01428-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/03/23 Page 4 of 6
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

to proceed solely as to such Eighth Amendment claims, plaintiff shall so indicate on the attached 

form and return it to the court within thirty days from the date of this order. In this event, the 

court will construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing the 

defective Fourteenth Amendment claims without prejudice. In this event, the court will construe 

plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his second claim and

dismissing his defective claim against defendant South Lake Tahoe County Jail without prejudice.

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that plaintiff’s 

second claim and his claim against the jail be dismissed without prejudice, and this action will 

proceed solely on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Chapman and 

Cameron.

Dated: October 3, 2023

/cast1428.14o

Case 2:23-cv-01428-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/03/23 Page 5 of 6
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CAST,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN D’AGOSTINI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1428 KJN P

NOTICE OF ELECTION

Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows:

______ Plaintiff opts to proceed with his Eighth Amendment claims against 

defendants Chapman and Cameron.

______ Plaintiff consents to dismissal of his second claim, as well as his Eighth 

Amendment claim against defendant jail without prejudice.

OR

_____ Plaintiff opts to file an amended complaint and delay service of process.

DATED: 

_______________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:23-cv-01428-TLN-KJN Document 8 Filed 10/03/23 Page 6 of 6