Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00773/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00773-11/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

JONATHAN DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KANWAR KELLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-0773 DB P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set 

forth below, this court finds plaintiff continues to state a minimally cognizable claim for relief 

against defendant Ashe but fails to state any other claims. Therefore, this court will recommend 

this case proceed solely on plaintiff’s claim against Ashe and that all other claims and defendants 

be dismissed. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff identified three 

defendants: Dr. Kanwar Kelley, Dr. M. Ashe, and San Joaquin Medical Hospital. Plaintiff 

alleged that in 2020 Dr. Kelley performed a surgery that resulted in a torn septum. When plaintiff 

complained, Dr. Ashe failed to take any action to correct the problem. This court found plaintiff 

stated no cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 and dismissed the complaint with leave 

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 34 Filed 04/04/24 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

to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff then filed a series of amended complaints. This court found 

plaintiff failed to state any claims for relief in his first and second amended complaints. (ECF 

Nos. 12, 14.) 

Upon screening plaintiff’s third amended complaint, this court found plaintiff stated a 

minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Ashe. In addition, based on 

plaintiff’s new allegations that defendant Kelley performed surgery with insufficient room to 

work, causing plaintiff to suffer a perforated septum, this court found plaintiff also stated a 

minimally sufficient Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Kelley. (ECF No. 18.) This 

court further found plaintiff stated no other plausible claims for relief. Plaintiff was given the 

option of proceeding on his third amended complaint as screened or filing an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff elected to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff then filed a fourth amended complaint. This court again found plaintiff stated a 

minimally sufficient claim against Dr. Ashe. Plaintiff’s allegations against Dr. Kelley were that 

Kelley performed a more invasive surgery than plaintiff had consented to and that surgery caused 

plaintiff irreparable damage. This court found that “where an inmate consents to surgery, but 

later argues that they did not consent to the surgery actually performed, [he] fails to show an 

Eighth Amendment violation.” (ECF No. 29 at 7 (citations omitted).) Therefore, plaintiff did not 

state a claim against defendant Kelley. This court again gave plaintiff the option of proceeding 

on the fourth amended complaint as screened or filing an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff again opted to file an amended complaint. In response, this court noted that plaintiff 

had multiple opportunities to state additional claims and had failed to do so. This court informed 

plaintiff that should the fifth amended complaint fail to state any additional cognizable claims, 

this court would recommend that those claims and/or defendants be dismissed without leave to 

amend. (ECF No. 32.) 

SCREENING

As described in this court’s prior screening orders, the court is required to screen complaints 

brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim 

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 34 Filed 04/04/24 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

in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In 

addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the 

deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “A person 

‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he 

does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which 

he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

In his fifth amended complaint, plaintiff identifies two defendants: Dr. Kanwar Kelley and 

Dr. Marianna Ashe. (ECF No. 33.) While he has expanded on the allegations he made against 

Dr. Kelley, they are essentially the same as the allegations plaintiff made in the fourth amended 

complaint. Plaintiff contends Dr. Kelley performed a more extensive surgery than that plaintiff 

had consented to. As a result of that surgery, plaintiff suffered irreparable injury. For the reasons 

set forth in this court’s prior screening order, plaintiff’s additional allegations do not transform his 

claim against Dr. Kelley into a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. (See ECF No. 29 at 7.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations against Dr. Ashe are the same as previously stated and this court again 

finds plaintiff states a minimally cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for relief against Dr. Ashe. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this court finds plaintiff has stated one minimally cognizable 

claim for relief – that Dr. Ashe violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights when she failed to 

take any action after plaintiff informed her of the pain he was suffering as a result of the surgery 

performed by Dr. Kelley. Plaintiff states no other plausible claims for relief.

Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to amend his complaint to state a claim against Dr. 

Kelley. The essential facts of his claim – that Kelley performed a more invasive surgery than that 

plaintiff consented to – do not state a potential claim that Kelley was deliberately indifferent to 

plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This court finds that any 

further opportunities to amend the complaint would be futile.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 

judge to this case.

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 34 Filed 04/04/24 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

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. This case proceed solely on plaintiff’s allegations in the fifth amended complaint that 

defendant Dr. Ashe violated his Eighth Amendment rights; and

2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed from this action without leave to amend. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 

the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 3, 2024

DLB:9

DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/davi0773.5AC scrn fr

Case 2:22-cv-00773-KJM-SCR Document 34 Filed 04/04/24 Page 4 of 4