Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01198/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01198-4/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

ANTHONY EIDEM,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO DISMISS DEFENDANT B. GREEN 

FROM PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(Doc. 31) 

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Anthony Eidem, a state prisoner currently represented by counsel, initiated this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 26, 2023. (Doc. 1.) The matter was 

transferred to this Court on August 15, 2023. (Doc. 8.) The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint against Defendants Barry Green (“B. Green”), CDCR Officer C. Vang, and 

DOES 1-15. (Doc. 21.) Defendants move to dismiss Defendant B. Green from the Second 

Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 

claim. (Doc. 31.) The motion was referred to the undersigned for appropriate action. (Doc. 33.) 

I. Plaintiff’s Allegations

At all times relevant to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Plaintiff was a state 

prisoner housed at Avenal State Prison. He was convicted and incarcerated for a sex crime in

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 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

2

violation of California Penal Code § 261. (SAC ¶ 17.) On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff alleges he 

notified Defendant Vang and DOES 1-5 that he feared for his safety based on his commitment 

offense and threats he received. (SAC ¶ 31.) On that date, he was initially assigned to Housing 

Unit 110. Plaintiff communicated that he was being threatened to DOES 1-5 at approximately 

5:55 p.m. At approximately 8:30 p.m., Plaintiff was moved from Housing Unit 110 to Unit 120. 

Plaintiff asked Defendant Vang to be moved again for his safety. Defendant Vang told Plaintiff

that he had to stay the night. Defendant Vang also told Plaintiff not to worry and that he would 

keep an eye on him. Plaintiff begged to be moved, but Defendant Vang ordered Plaintiff back to 

his bunk. Later than night, another prisoner tried to cut Plaintiff’s throat, causing a six-inch 

laceration. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 25, 32-34.) 

At some point, Defendant B. Green, a Physicians Assistant at Avenal State Prison, 

allegedly “concocted a story that Plaintiff had injured himself, cutting his own throat with a shard 

of glass after breaking an observation window.” (SAC ¶ 37.) This information was documented 

in a report generated by Dr. Everett Shareck of Coalinga Reginal Medical Center dated July 19, 

2022. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that his future safety was compromised when Defendant B. Green 

allegedly created and communicated a false story about Plaintiff being on suicide watch and 

having injured himself, rather than being attacked. (Id. ¶ 43.)

On July 26, 2022, DOES 1-5 allegedly coerced Plaintiff to sign a document that falsely 

stated Plaintiff felt safe on his current housing location. Plaintiff alleged he was threatened with 

removal of his property and being put on suicide watch. (SAC ¶ 44.) After July 26, Plaintiff was 

again forced to sign a document falsely stating he felt safe. (Id. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff included a short 

statement stating that he was signing the document under duress, but the statement was allegedly 

redacted from subsequent copies of the document. (Id.)

On August 25, 2022, another inmate attacked Plaintiff, breaking his nose. (SAC ¶¶ 12, 

63.) This occurred after Plaintiff had repeatedly communicated to CDCR staff, including DOES 

1-15, that he was being threatened, and after his family contacted the Ombudsman. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 

52.) Plaintiff alleges that CDCR staff inaccurately reported that Plaintiff had fallen. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff further alleges that DOES 6 – 15 were subjectively aware of the serious and

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 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

3

ongoing threats to Plaintiff’s safety as he had repeatedly voiced his fears, including to 

Institutional Psychologist Jeoung Park, Social Worker “Mr. Berg,” the office of the Reasonable 

Accommodation Committee (including their five-member review panel), and the CDCR 

Ombudsman (who had been contacted by Plaintiff’s family). (SAC ¶¶ 66, 74.)

On September 8, 2022, another inmate attacked Plaintiff, breaking his jaw. (SAC ¶ 13.) 

Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to another facility. (Id. ¶ 69.)

Plaintiff forwards causes of action for: (1) deliberate indifference to inmate safety in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) violation of the Bane 

Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 52.1; and (3) negligence in violation of California Civil 

Code § 1714 and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The parties have reportedly agreed 

that the only claim alleged against Defendant B. Green is a negligence claim. (Doc. 31-1, 

Declaration of S. Gray Gilmor ¶ 4; see also Doc. 29 at 2.) 

II. Motion to Dismiss

A. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, and 

dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts 

alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241–42 

(9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible 

on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; 

Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While the 

plausibility requirement is not akin to a probability requirement, it demands more than “a sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

B. Discussion

Defendants move to dismiss Defendant B. Green from this action under Rule 12(b)(6), 

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 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

4

arguing that Plaintiff has failed to plead the necessary elements to support a negligence claim. 

(Doc. 31 at 1-2, 5.) In support of their motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed 

adequately plead the elements of breach and causation to support a negligence claim under 

California Civil Code § 1714, which codifies the common law duty to act with reasonable care. 

See Satntos ex rel. Santos v. City of Culver City. 228 F. App’x 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Defendants cite the elements for a claim of negligence as “(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a 

breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting 

injury,” quoting Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917-18 (1996) (internal quotes 

and citations omitted). (Doc. 31 at 5.) Defendants assert that when applying California Civil 

Code § 1714(a) to medical professionals, the duty of care imposes a duty to “use such skill, 

prudence and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise.” 

Flores v. Liu, 60 Cal. App. 5th 278, 290 (2021) (citing Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 

1064, 1082 (1992)).

Defendants initially argue that Plaintiff fails to adequately allege that Defendant B. Green 

breached his duty to Plaintiff by documenting that Plaintiff’s neck injury was the result of 

Plaintiff cutting himself. (Doc. 31 at 6.) Additionally, Defendants indicate that the SAC (1) does 

not allege that Plaintiff informed Defendant B. Green that he was attacked or the cause of the 

injury; and (2) does not plead any facts that demonstrate why Defendant B. Green’s conclusion 

that the injury was self-inflicted breached the duty of care he owed to Plaintiff. Defendants aver 

that at time Defendant B. Green recorded his medical note about Plaintiff’s laceration and relayed 

the information to Dr. Shareck, the information was accurate to the best of Defendant B. Green’s 

knowledge. (Id.) Defendants claim that Defendant B. Green made a reasonable diagnosis with 

the information before him, and he acted with the care and prudence other physicians would act 

with in his position. Defendants therefore contend that his conduct did not fall below the standard 

of care, and he did not breach his duty to Plaintiff. (Id. at 7.) Defendants further contend that 

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant B. Green concocted the false diagnosis to protect other prison 

staff is conclusory and unsupported by any facts in the SAC. 

Defendants next argue that the SAC fails to plead facts that Defendant B. Green’s 

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 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

5

diagnosis that Plaintiff cut himself was the proximate cause of the second and third attacks. (Doc. 

31 at 7.) Defendants cite three reasons supporting this argument: First, Defendants contend that 

Defendant B. Green’s medical records were not a substantial factor in the subsequent attacks on 

Plaintiff 38 and 52 days later. (Id.) According to Defendants, Plaintiff does not describe how 

Defendant B. Green relaying his diagnosis to a doctor at an outside hospital affected Plaintiff’s 

housing at Avenal State Prison, which was decided by other officials. Plaintiff also reportedly 

relayed his safety concerns to other people after the creation of the medical records and the 

attacks still occurred, regardless of the accuracy of Defendant B. Green’s records. (Id. at 8.)

Second, Defendants contend that the criminal conduct of the attackers was the superseding 

cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. (Doc. 31 at 7.) Defendants indicate that it is undisputed that third 

parties criminally attacked Plaintiff. (See SAC at ¶¶ 21, 22.) Defendants point out that the SAC 

does not plead any facts that the inmates were aware of Defendant B. Green’s medical records 

and that the records increased the likelihood they would attack Plaintiff. Defendants reiterate that 

the SAC fails to plead facts describing how the medical records had any effect on Plaintiff’s 

security and housing status. (Doc. 31 at 9-10.) 

Third, even if the criminal conduct did not absolve Defendant B. Green of liability, 

Defendants contend that CDCR officials’ alleged deliberate indifference, which Defendants deny, 

would have been the superseding cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. (Doc. 31 at 7.) Defendants note 

that Plaintiff alleges he informed at least 18 other CDCR officials of his safety concerns after 

Defendant B. Green created the medical records. (See SAC at ¶¶ 52, 54, 66, 74.) Defendants 

contend that, accepting these allegations as true, these officials had the opportunity to take action 

to avert the attacks on Plaintiff. Defendants assert that assuming at the pleading stage that CDCR 

officials were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s safety, their deliberate indifference was the 

superseding cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and Defendant B. Green is not liable for negligence. 

(Doc. 31 at 10-11.) 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed on September 20, 2024. (Doc. 31.) Although 

Plaintiff is represented by counsel in this action, the Court advised Plaintiff of its general practice 

to continue to apply the motion briefing schedule in Local Rule 230(l). (See Doc. 20 at 1 n.1.) 

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 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

6

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s opposition was due no later than October 11, 2024, i.e., 

not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion. Plaintiff failed to file 

a timely opposition. 

Based on the failure to file a timely opposition, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to

show cause why the motion to dismiss Defendant B. Green should not be granted. (Doc. 34.) 

The Court directed Plaintiff to file a written response within fourteen (14) days, and informed

Plaintiff that he could comply by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Id. at 2.) The Court warned Plaintiff that a failure to comply 

would be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion. (Id.) Plaintiff failed 

to file a response to the show cause order, and the time in which to do so has passed. Therefore, 

the Court deems the motion to dismiss unopposed. See L.R. 230(l) (“Failure of the responding 

party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any 

opposition to the granting of the motion ad may result in the imposition of sanctions.”). 

Considering the non-opposition and for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ motion, the 

Court will recommend that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Defendant B. Green from the SAC be 

granted. Absent any opposition to dismissal, and because Plaintiff has already amended his 

complaint, further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th 

Cir. 2000). 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Defendant B. Green from Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Complaint (Doc. 31) be GRANTED without leave to amend.

2. Defendant B. Green be DISMISSED from this action.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed fifteen 

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 12/02/24 Page 6 of 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

7

(15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page number if 

already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limit may not be 

considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01198-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 12/02/24 Page 7 of 7