Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00970/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00970-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SEAN RAPHAEL ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00970-SKO (PC)

Tuolumne Superior Court Case No. CV58067

SECOND SCREENING ORDER

DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAAINST 

DEFENDANT ALLEN, WITH PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAIULRE TO STATE A CLAIM AND 

REMANDING ACTION TO TUOLUMNE 

SUPERIOR COURT

(Doc. 9)

Second Screening Order

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Sean Raphael Roberts (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this 

civil action in Tuolumne County Superior Court on March 8, 2013. Plaintiff seeks relief for the 

violation of his federal constitutional rights and for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)). Defendant Allen 

filed a notice of removal on June 21, 2013. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

On April 18, 2014, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Allen, with 

leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 5, 2014.

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 10 Filed 05/21/14 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

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). 

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, which provides a cause of action for the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s 

federal constitutional rights, 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, e.g., 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 Allegations Against Defendant Allen

Defendant Curtis C. Allen is Chief Physician and Surgeon at Sierra Conservation Center in 

Jamestown, California, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated.

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 10 Filed 05/21/14 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

Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, he was diagnosed with a double hernia and prescribed 

medication which made him ill. After being prescribed a new medication, Plaintiff put in a 

request to be seen by his primary care physician. Plaintiff was instead seen by C. Clegg, a female 

registered nurse.

Nurse Clegg directed Plaintiff to expose his genital area, apparently so she could evaluate 

his hernia. Plaintiff alleges that he informed Nurse Clegg he is a practicing Muslim and for 

religious reasons, he did not want to expose that area of his body to her.

Plaintiff thereafter filed an inmate appeal stating that it violated his religious beliefs to 

expose his genitals to Nurse Clegg as she directed. Defendant Allen granted Plaintiff’s inmate 

appeal in full.

For the next year, Plaintiff was repeatedly seen by Nurse Clegg and requested to expose 

his genitals. Nurse Clegg informed Plaintiff that he would not be allowed to see the doctor 

because his granted appeal was rescinded.

Plaintiff filed another appeal and wrote a letter to the Office of Internal Affairs. Plaintiff’s 

letter was sent to Warden Heidi Lackner for investigation and during the investigation, Defendant 

Allen stated the appeal had been granted for one day.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Allen’s decision to grant his appeal for only one day forces 

him to make a choice between missing medical appointments and violating his religion, which 

puts his health in peril.

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

As an initial matter, the existence of an inmate appeals process does not create any 

substantive rights such that Plaintiff may seek to impose liability on Defendant Allen merely 

based on his actions in reviewing and responding to Plaintiff’s inmate appeal. Ramirez v. Galaza, 

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)).

With respect to what appear to be Plaintiff’s federal claims, Plaintiff’s amended complaint 

is devoid of any specific facts supporting a claim that Defendant Allen acted with deliberate

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Wilhelm 

v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012), or that Defendant Allen substantially burden the 

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 10 Filed 05/21/14 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

practice of Plaintiff’s religion, in violation of the First Amendment and/or RLUIPA, Hartmann v. 

California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 

514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008).

1

 While the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding pro 

se, e.g., Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342, the mere possibility of misconduct will not support a claim for 

relief under federal law, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969, and here, even viewed 

through the requisite lens of leniency, Plaintiff’s vague allegations of misconduct against 

Defendant Allen do not suffice to support a plausible claim for relief under federal law.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted 

against Defendant Allen. Plaintiff was previously provided with the opportunity to amend and 

based on the nature of the deficiencies, further leave to amend is not warranted. Akhtar v. Mesa, 

698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000); 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Allen are DISMISSED, with prejudice, for 

failure to state a claim; and

2. This action is REMANDED to Tuolumne County Superior Court for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court expresses no opinion on the viability of claims against other defendants, as the Court’s jurisdiction is 

limited to the claims against Defendant Allen.

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 10 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 4