Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04489/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04489-1/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OMAR RIVERA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. ZEWART, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-04489-MEJ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) in Soledad, California, filed 

this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the Court 

for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

ANALYSIS 

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which 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. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 14
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 Californi

a

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

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

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

42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants provided “negligent care and medical treatment” for 

Plaintiff’s knee which resulted in Plaintiff becoming disabled and has caused him to suffer chronic 

pain which Defendants have not treated. Docket No. 1 at 9. Plaintiff alleges that had he been 

provided “reasonably competent” medical care, his knee would have made a full recovery. Docket 

No. 1 at 9. 

Plaintiff makes the following specific allegations about his medical care. On July 8, 2011, 

Dr. Thomas Zewart performed an artroscopic meniscectomy on Plaintiff’s right medial meniscus. 

Docket No. 1 at 10. The meniscectomy failed because Dr. Zewart did not perform the surgery “at 

the prevailing medical standards” and because Dr. Zewart faced “economic restrictions that 

motivated [un]intentional sub-par medical services to Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs 

(disinfranchisment) (Alienge) being an incarcerated person.” Id. The failed meniscectomy 

resulted in Plaintiff suffering an irregular walk and chronic pain. Id. at 11. That same day, 

Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiff that some of the defendants involved in Plaintiff’s 

healthcare were not licensed to practice medicine, had had their license suspended, or had been the 

subject of disciplinary action by a state licensing board. Id. at 11‒12. Defendants’ failure to 

disclose this information voided Plaintiff’s consent to the meniscectomy, and constituted a battery 

upon his person. Id. 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 14
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 Californi

a

On February 4, 2015, Dr. Marshall Lewis performed a second artroscopic meniscectomy 

on Plaintiff’s right medial meniscus. Docket No. 1 at 13. This surgery also failed, for the same 

reasons Dr. Zewart’s surgery failed, i.e. the surgery was not performed “at the prevailing medical 

standards” and Dr. Lewis faced “economic restrictions that motivated [un]intentional sub-par 

medical services to Plaintiff because of Plaintiffs (disinfranchisment) (Alienge) being an 

incarcerated person.” Id. at 13. 

On May 20, 2015, SVSP primary health care provider Dr. F. Tuvera failed to provide 

Plaintiff adequate medical care and proper pain management. Docket No. 1 at 6. On November 4, 

2015, Deputy Director of Policy and Risk Management J. Lewis denied Plaintiff adequate 

healthcare and pain management. Id. 

Plaintiff makes the following additional allegations. Defendants negligently maintained 

their services, activities, personnel and equipment in a manner that caused Plaintiff injury. Docket 

No. 1 at 9. Defendants negligently and carelessly failed to properly ensure that their medical staff 

was properly licensed, qualified, and otherwise competent to provide medical services. Ibid. 

“[E]conomic restrictions [] motivated [un]intentional sub-par medical services re, post, and 

recovery medical service” provided to him. Id. at 11 and 13. Defendants fraudulently represented 

themselves to the public at large as “fully licensed and credentialed Healthcare Providers who are 

legally authorized to provide the healthcare services which they provide.” Id. at 14. Defendants 

provided him with healthcare which fell below the standard of care and caused him to become 

physically disabled. Id. at 14. 

 Plaintiff has named the following individuals as defendants: Steven Kernan; J. Solis; Dr. 

Zewart; Dr. M. Lewis; Dr. F. Tuvera; SVSP Chief Physician and Surgeon Dr. L. Gamboa, for 

denying grievance HC-15-053292; SVSP Chief Medical Executive K. Kumar, for denying 

grievance HC-15-053292; Deputy Director of Policy and Risk Management J. Lewis; SVSP 

Warden RTC Grounds because he knew or should have known of the systemic health care crisis at 

SVSP; SVSP Warden W. L. Muniz because he knew or should have known of the systemic health 

care crisis at SVSP; CDCR Secretary J. A. Beard because he knew or should have known of the 

systemic health care crisis at SVSP; SVSP Healthcare Provider C. Bourne for failing to provide 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 14
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 Californi

a

adequate medical care and proper pain management; SVSP Healthcare Provider C. Lott for failing 

to provide adequate medical care and proper pain management; SVSP Healthcare Provider Law 

San Fu for failing to provide adequate medical care and proper pain management; and SVSP 

osteopath Dr. Birdsong for “perform[ing] duties on Plaintiff that fell below the standard of care of 

his respective medical board and was not legally authorized to conduct.” 

 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth, 

Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution; that Defendants conspired to violate his civil 

rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); that Defendants have violated the California Uniform 

Commercial Code (“UCC”), Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 905, 910, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 2052, 17200, 

and Cal. Penal Code § 1170; that Defendants failed to perform his meniscectomy in accordance 

with the standard of care; that Defendants committed battery by failing to obtain his informed 

consent prior to his meniscectomy; and that Defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment. 

C. DISCUSSION 

1. Federal Constitutional Claims 

The complaint fails to state a cognizable federal claim. Plaintiff makes the conclusory 

allegation that Defendants violated his rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth 

Amendment of the federal constitution, but he does not specify what federal constitutional rights 

were violated and what actions caused the alleged constitutional violation. Regardless, the events 

described by Plaintiff – failed meniscectomies, inadequate health care, unlicensed medical 

professionals, and failure to obtain informed consent – do not state claims for violations of either 

the First Amendment, which protects individuals’ rights to free exercise of religion, to free speech, 

to peacefully assemble, or to petition the government for redress of grievances,1

 or the Sixth 

Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants certain rights.2 Because Plaintiff’s claims are 

 

1

 The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the 

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a 

redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. 

2

 The Sixth Amendment provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 

right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime 

shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be 

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 14
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 Californi

a

unrelated to free exercise of religion, free speech, peaceful assembly, petitioning the government 

for redress, or his criminal trial, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s First Amendment 

and Sixth Amendment claims. See Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 393 (9th Cir. 1996) (dismissal 

may be ordered with prejudice where amendment would be futile). 

The Court presumes that Plaintiff’s reference to the Fourteenth Amendment claim is 

merely in support of his Eighth Amendment claim. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101 

(1976) (Eighth Amendment applicable to states through Due Process Clause of Fourteenth 

Amendment). If Plaintiff seeks to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim that is separate from his 

Eighth Amendment claim, he must file an amended complaint that specifically states what 

Fourteenth Amendment right was violated. 

While the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment 

prohibits prison officials from being deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious medical needs, 

see Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104; McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled 

on other grounds by WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997), the 

complaint fails to state a cognizable Eight Amendment claim for the following reasons. 

A prison official is deliberately indifferent if she or he knows that a prisoner faces a 

substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate 

it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of 

facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but 

he or she “must also draw the inference.” Id. “Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a 

prisoner’s serious medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical 

treatment. . . . Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does 

not violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 

2000) (citation omitted); see Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835–36 & n.4 (recognizing that neither 

negligence nor gross negligence will constitute deliberate indifference). 

Liberally construing the complaint, Plaintiff’s allegation that he required knee surgery 

 

him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance 

of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 5 of 14
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

states a serious medical need. However, with respect to Dr. Zewart and Dr. Lewis, Plaintiff’s 

allegations establish that Dr. Zewart and Dr. Lewis provided Plaintiff with medical treatment for 

his knee, specifically two meniscectomies. Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding 

the failure of the meniscectomies amount, at most, to negligence, which is insufficient to state an 

Eighth Amendment claim against either Dr. Zewart or Dr. Lewis. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 

(negligence in treating medical condition does not state valid Eighth Amendment claim). Because 

it appears possible that Plaintiff may be able to correct these deficiencies, the Court DISMISSES 

the Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Zewart and Dr. Lewis with leave to amend to correct 

the identified deficiency, if Plaintiff can truthfully do so. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127–29 (if court 

determines pleading could be cured by allegation of other facts, pro se litigant entitled to 

opportunity to amend complaint before dismissal of action). 

With respect to named defendants SVSP Warden Grounds, SVSP Warden Muniz, and 

CDCR Secretary Beard, Plaintiff has indicated that he named these individuals as defendants 

because they hold supervisory roles. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 

for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). Knowledge and acquiescence 

of a subordinate’s misconduct is insufficient to establish liability; each government official is only 

liable for his or her own misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). To state a 

claim for relief under §1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some 

facts that would support a claim that (1) each of these supervisory defendants proximately caused 

the deprivation of rights of which Plaintiff complains, see Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 

1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981); or (2) each of these supervisory defendants failed to properly train or 

supervise personnel resulting in the alleged deprivation, Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile 

Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680 (9th Cir. 1984); (3) the alleged deprivation resulted from custom 

or policy for which each of the supervisory defendants was responsible, see id.; or (4) each of the 

supervisory defendants knew of the alleged misconduct and failed to act to prevent future 

misconduct, Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. Plaintiff has not alleged facts that would entitle him to 

relief against SVSP Warden Grounds, SVSP Warden Muniz, and CDCR Secretary Beard. 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 6 of 14
7 

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 Californi

a

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against these defendants. 

Because it appears possible that Plaintiff may be able to correct the identified deficiency, the Court 

DISMISSES the Eighth Amendment claims against SVSP Warden Grounds, SVSP Warden 

Muniz, and CDCR Secretary Beard with leave to amend to correct the identified deficiency, if 

Plaintiff can truthfully do so. 

Plaintiff has named SVSP Chief Physician and Surgeon Dr. Gamboa and SVSP Chief 

Medical Executive Kumar as defendants for their roles in denying grievance HC-15-053292. The 

prison grievance procedure does not confer any substantive rights upon inmates and actions in 

reviewing and denying inmate appeals generally cannot serve as a basis for liability under section 

1983. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). However, where a grievance puts a 

prison official on notice of an ongoing constitutional violation, the prison official’s knowing 

failure to respond to an inmate’s request for help may establish § 1983 liability. Cf. Jett v. Penner, 

439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (supervisor may be liable for deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need, for instance, if he or she fails to respond to a prisoner’s request for help). 

The complaint does not specify the contents of grievance HC-15-053292; does not specify when 

Dr. Gamboa and Chief Medical Executive Kumar reviewed this grievance, i.e. if they learned of 

Plaintiff’s serious medical need while the need was ongoing; or how the denial of the grievance 

affected Plaintiff’s medical care. In other words, Plaintiff has made no allegations from which the 

Court can reasonably infer that Dr. Gamboa and Chief Medical Executive Kumar were aware that 

the treatment Plaintiff was receiving was inappropriate and that Dr. Gamboa and Chief Medical 

Executive Kumar were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need by denying 

grievance HC-15-053292. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim 

against Dr. Gamboa and Chief Medical Executive Kumar. Because it appears possible that 

Plaintiff may be able to correct the identified deficiency, the Court DISMISSES the Eighth 

Amendment claims against Dr. Gamboa and Chief Medical Executive Kumar with leave to amend 

to correct the identified deficiency, if Plaintiff can truthfully do so. 

Plaintiff has named Deputy Director of Policy and Risk Management J. Lewis; Dr. Tuvera; 

SVSP osteopath Dr. Birdsong; and SVSP Healthcare Providers Bourne, Lott, and Law San Fu as 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 7 of 14
8 

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 Californi

a

defendants. His only allegation against these defendants is that they failed to provide him 

adequate healthcare and pain management. Docket No. 1 at 6–8. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation 

is insufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, and therefore fails to state a 

cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against these defendants. See Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 

at 555. Because it appears possible that Plaintiff may be able to correct this deficiency, the Court 

DISMISSES the Eighth Amendment claim against Deputy Director of Policy and Risk 

Management J. Lewis; Dr. Tuvera; SVSP osteopath Dr. Birdsong; and SVSP Healthcare Providers 

Bourne, Lott, Law San Fu with leave to amend to correct the identified deficiency, if Plaintiff can 

truthfully do so. 

Plaintiff has named Steven Kernan and J. Solis as defendants. However, Plaintiff has not 

identified any affirmative act, participation in an affirmative act, or failure to perform a legally 

required act by these defendants that resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Steven Kernan and 

J. Solis. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (person “subjects” another to 

deprivation of constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does affirmative act, 

participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform act which he is legally required to do 

that causes deprivation of which complaint is made). Because it appears possible that Plaintiff 

may be able to correct this deficiency, the Court DISMISSES the Eighth Amendment claim 

against Steven Kernan and J. Solis with leave to amend to correct the identified deficiency, if 

Plaintiff can truthfully do so. 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants failed to ensure that prison 

medical staff were properly licensed, properly qualified, and competent to provide medical 

services states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against supervisory defendants SVSP 

Warden Grounds, SVSP Warden Muniz, and CDCR Secretary Beard. “The Eighth Amendment 

requires that prison officials provide a system of ready access to adequate medical care. . . . 

Access to the medical staff has no meaning if the medical staff is not competent to deal with the 

prisoners’ problems.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982) abrogated on other 

grounds by Sandin v. O’Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (citation omitted). 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 8 of 14
9 

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 Californi

a

2. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) Claim 

Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). 

Section 1985(3) prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to deprive any person or class of 

persons of the equal protection of the law. A cause of action under § 1985(3) requires a showing 

of some racial or class-based discrimination, see Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719, 724–26 (1983), 

which Plaintiff does not allege. Because it appears possible that Plaintiff may be able to correct 

this identified deficiency, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Section 1985(3) claim with leave to 

amend to correct the identified deficiency, if Plaintiff can truthfully do so. 

3. State Law Claims 

a. California UCC claim 

Plaintiff states that he is “seeking redress, review, and damages pursuant to . . . the 

Uniform Commercial Code.” Docket No. 1 at 1. The California Uniform Commercial Code 

governs sales and other commercial transactions. The events described by Plaintiff – failed 

meniscectomies, inadequate health care, unlicensed medical professionals, and failure to obtain 

informed consent – are completely unrelated to sales or commercial transactions. Because 

amendment would be futile, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s California UCC claim with 

prejudice. 

b. Cal. Civil Proc. §§ 905, 910 claim 

Plaintiff states that he is “seeking redress, review, and damages pursuant to the Code of 

Civil Procedure (CCP), §§ 905 and 910 . . .” Docket No. 1 at 1. Sections 905 and 910 have been 

repealed. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims under Cal. Civil Proc. §§ 905, 

910 with prejudice. 

c. Standard of Care claim 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants provided medical services that deviated from the standard 

of care. Docket No. 1 at 10–11 and 13–14. Liberally construed, Plaintiff is alleging a claim for 

medical malpractice. “The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are: (1) a duty to 

use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profession commonly possess and 

exercise; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 9 of 14
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

conduct and the injury; and (4) resulting loss or damage.” Johnson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal. 

Rptr. 3d 52, 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). Plaintiff has stated a cognizable medical malpractice claim 

against Dr. Zewart and Dr. Lewis with respect to the alleged failure of the meniscectomies. 

However, his conclusory allegation that the remaining defendants have provided medical services 

that deviated from the standard of care and denied him adequate medical care and pain 

management is insufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. See Bell Atlantic 

Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a cognizable medical malpractice claim 

against the remaining defendants. Because it appears possible that Plaintiff may be able to correct 

this deficiency, the Court DISMISSES the medical malpractice claim against the remaining 

defendants with leave to amend to correct the identified deficiency, if Plaintiff can truthfully do 

so. 

d. Battery claim 

Plaintiff alleges that the two knee surgeries constituted battery because Defendants’ failure 

to provide him with necessary information – that the licenses of certain medical staff had been 

suspended or revoked – voided Plaintiff’s consent to the surgeries. Under California law, battery 

and lack of informed consent are separate causes of action. Saxena v. Goffney, 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 

469, 475–76 (2008). “A claim based on lack of informed consent—which sounds in negligence—

arises when the doctor performs a procedure without first adequately disclosing the risks and 

alternatives. In contrast, a battery is an intentional tort that occurs when a doctor performs a 

procedure without obtaining any consent.” Id. Because Plaintiff acknowledges that he consented 

to the operations, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for battery. Because amendment would be futile, 

the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s battery claim with prejudice. 

e. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2052 claim 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “acts and practices” violated section 2052 of the 

California Business and Professions Code. Docket No. 1 at 16. There is no private right of action 

with respect to Section 2052. Section 2052 provides that any person who practices medicine in 

California “without having at the time of so doing a valid, unrevoked, or unsuspended certificate” 

is “guilty of a public offense, punishable by” fine and/or imprisonment. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 10 of 14
11 

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 Californi

a

Code § 2052(a). Section 2052 further provides: “Any person who conspires with or aids or abets 

another to commit any act described in subdivision (a) is guilty of a public offense, subject to the 

punishment described in that subdivision.” See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2052(b). Section 2052, 

by its terms, is a criminal statute setting forth no private right of action. Accordingly, to the extent 

Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants accountable for violating section 2052, he must rely on common 

law. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2052(c) (“The remedy provided in [§ 2052] shall not preclude 

any other remedy provided by law.”). The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 2052 claim with prejudice. 

f. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 claim 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “acts and practices” violated section 17200 of the 

California Business and Professions Code, also known as the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). 

Docket No. 1 at 16. In relevant part, the UCL prohibits “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business 

act[s] or practice[s] . . .” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “The UCL’s purpose is to protect both 

consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and 

services.” Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 45 P.3d 243, 249 (Cal. 2002). In providing Plaintiff with 

healthcare services, Defendants were not providing services for a commercial market. 

Defendants’ alleged unlawful or fraudulent acts are therefore neither business acts nor business 

practices. The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 claim with 

prejudice. 

 g. Cal. Penal Code § 1170 claim 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “acts and practices” violated section 1170 of the 

California Penal Code. Docket No. 1 at 16. Section 1170 requires determinate sentences for 

crimes and sets forth how to calculate a determinate sentence. See generally Cal. Penal Code § 

1170. The events described by Plaintiff – failed meniscectomies, inadequate health care, 

unlicensed medical professionals, and failure to obtain informed consent – are completely 

unrelated to the validity of, or length of, his sentence. The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 

Cal. Penal Code § 1170 claim with prejudice. See Dumas, 90 F.3d at 393 (dismissal may be 

ordered with prejudice where amendment would be futile). 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 11 of 14
12 

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 Californi

a

 h. Fraudulent concealment 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment when they represented 

themselves as licensed and legally authorized to provide healthcare services because Plaintiff 

reasonably relied on this representation in agreeing to the surgery and Plaintiff became disabled as 

a result of his reliance. Docket No. 1 at 14–16. “The required elements for fraudulent 

concealment are: (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty 

to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by 

intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and 

would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; 

and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact.” 

Graham v. Bank of Am., N.A., 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218, 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). 

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable fraudulent concealment claim for the 

following reasons. First, Plaintiff fails to specify which Defendants or healthcare providers were 

unlicensed, unqualified, or otherwise incompetent to provide healthcare services. If Dr. Zewart 

and Dr. Lewis were not licensed, qualified, or competent to perform the knee surgeries, this would 

be a fact material to Plaintiff’s knee surgeries. However, if the remaining defendants were not 

licensed, qualified and competent to provide healthcare services, this would not be material to 

Plaintiff’s knee surgery which Plaintiff alleges is the cause of this disability and chronic pain. 

Second, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a reasonable inference that Defendants represented 

themselves as licensed and legally authorized to provide healthcare services in order to induce 

Plaintiff to agree to the surgery. “It is not enough that the misstatement (or concealment) actually 

harmed the plaintiff; it must have been made by the defendant with the intent to induce action (or 

inaction) by the plaintiff.” Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC, 76 Cal. Rptr. 

3d 325, 333 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). Because it appears possible that Plaintiff may be able to correct 

these deficiencies, the Court DISMISSES the fraudulent concealment claim with leave to amend 

to correct the identified deficiency, if Plaintiff can truthfully do so. 

i. Medical negligence claim 

Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim against Dr. Zewart and Dr. Lewis 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 12 of 14
13 

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 Californi

a

for medical negligence for failure to obtain Plaintiff’s informed consent to the knee surgeries. 

Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 245 (Cal. 1972) (elements of negligence claim arising from 

physician’s failure to obtain informed consent are: (1) performance of medical procedure on 

plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not give informed consent; (3) reasonable person would not have 

consented to medical procedure if he had been fully informed of the results and risks of the 

medical procedure; and (4) plaintiff was harmed by result or risk that should have been explained 

before the medical procedure was performed). However, Plaintiff has not stated a medical 

negligence claim against the remaining defendants because the remaining defendants had no direct 

involvement in the surgery. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice the following claims: 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim; Sixth Amendment claim; California UCC claim; Cal. Civil 

Proc. §§ 905, 910; battery claim; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2052 claim; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

17200 claim; and Cal. Penal Code § 1170 claim. The remainder of the complaint is DISMISSED 

with leave to amend to address the deficiencies identified above. 

Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended 

complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this 

order, Case No. C 16-04489 MEJ (PR) and the words “AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first 

page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in 

order for the action to proceed. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous 

complaints, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present, 

including the claims which the Court has found cognizable, and all of the defendants he wishes to 

sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate 

material from the prior complaint by reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time provided 

will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. 

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s form complaint with a copy of this order to 

Plaintiff. 

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 13 of 14
14 

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 Californi

a

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

December 1, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-04489-MEJ Document 6 Filed 12/05/16 Page 14 of 14