Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02268/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02268-0/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 

DONTA DEON IVORY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVITA DIALYSIS CORP., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-2268-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2, 

4. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 2:19-cv-02268-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/26/20 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 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

III. Screening Order 

In this § 1983 action, plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against 21 named defendants based on allegedly deficient medical care. 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-02268-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/26/20 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 

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

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

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

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 

for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009). 

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 

from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 

2006). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim, and 

only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are 

sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). “Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate 

shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 

726, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (quotations and citations omitted). 

To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on allegedly deficient medical 

care, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he had a serious medical need and (2) the defendant’s 

response to that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2006); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the 

failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. A deliberately indifferent response may be 

shown by the denial, delay or intentional interference with medical treatment or by the way in 

which medical care was provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 

1988). To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from 

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also 

Case 2:19-cv-02268-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/26/20 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 

draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Simple negligence does not 

violate the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 835. 

Plaintiff has named 21 different defendants. Yet his complaint contains facts concerning 

just three: defendants DaVita Dialysis, Sagireddy, and Refuerzo. Because there are no facts in 

the complaint describing how the remaining 18 defendants violated plaintiff’s rights, plaintiff has 

stated no claim against them. 

With respect to defendants DaVita Dialysis, Sagireddy, and Refuerzo, plaintiff has also 

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. He alleges that, 

from January to March 2019, unidentified staff at “DaVita Dialysis/CHCF” ran plaintiff on a 

dialysis machine that was malfunctioning such that it only processed between 50% and 60% of 

plaintiff’s blood. ECF No. 1 at 4-8. Defendant Sagireddy, a doctor, sent plaintiff to an outside 

hospital for a surgical procedure to address “poor blood flow” on February 20, 2019. Id. 

Apparently, Sagireddy concluded that the machine was processing a lower amount of plaintiff’s 

blood due to blockage in plaintiff’s veins. When plaintiff returned, he and an outside doctor, Dr. 

Sattah, told DaVita Dialysis “staff” that plaintiff’s blood flow was fine and that whatever the 

problem was, it was with the dialysis clinic at the prison, possibly from staff sticking the needles 

in plaintiff incorrectly. Id. Thus, the surgical procedure had been unnecessary. Id. However, 

DaVita Dialysis “staff” refuted Dr. Sattah’s findings and continued to run plaintiff on the 

defective machine. Id. On February 21, 2019, defendant Refuerzo told plaintiff that he had an 

arterial stenosis and needed to get a second opinion. Id. 

On March 2, 2019, plaintiff noticed that the machine was processing the normal amount 

of blood (instead of 50-60%), so he assumed that whatever blockage he had had resolved. Id. 

But two nurses then told plaintiff that the machine’s blood pump had been malfunctioning and 

had been replaced, and that’s what the problem had been all along. Id. Thus, plaintiff had been 

receiving inadequate dialysis treatments since January and had undergone an unnecessary surgical 

procedure. 

While plaintiff’s allegations make clear that Sagireddy, Refuerzo, and unidentified DaVita 

“staff” made a mistake regarding the cause of the poor processing numbers, plaintiff has not 

Case 2:19-cv-02268-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/26/20 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 

alleged any facts from which a factfinder could conclude that any defendant had the requisite 

deliberately indifferent state of mind; for example, that he or she knew that the dialysis machine 

presented a risk of harm to plaintiff and used it anyway. Instead, it appears from the allegations 

that these defendants mistakenly attributed the machine’s low numbers to poor blood flow in 

plaintiff’s body. There is no allegation that any staff at the dialysis clinic knew that the machine 

was malfunctioning or even had reason to suspect that the machine was malfunctioning. While 

the facts stated by plaintiff may rise to the level of negligence, they do not allege an Eighth 

Amendment violation.1 Thus, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him 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). 

It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

///// 

///// 

1

 To the extent that plaintiff seeks to assert a state-law negligence or medical malpractice 

claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim absent a cognizable 

federal claim. Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 2:19-cv-02268-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/26/20 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 

6 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

IV. Summary of Order 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 

days of service of this order. The amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to 

comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files 

an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with 

service of process by the United States Marshal. 

DATED: March 26, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-02268-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 6