Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01698/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01698-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLIVIA BORBOLLA, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:19-cv-1698 JLT (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE A RESPONSE 

(Doc. 1) 

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff has filed a complaint asserting constitutional claims against governmental employees

and/or entities. (Doc. 1.) Generally, the Court is required to screen such complaints (28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a)) and 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) [“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may 

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action 

or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”]

I. Pleading Standard

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 

Case 1:19-cv-01698-HBK Document 8 Filed 06/04/20 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

“[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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (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.

Prisoners may bring § 1983 claims against individuals acting “under color of state law.” 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii). Under § 1983, 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, 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. 

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff brings an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Dr. John Pearce 

and Registered Nurse Olivia Borbolla, both employed at California State Prison in Corcoran, 

California at all times relevant to this action. Plaintiff seeks damages.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 7, 2019, Dr. Pearce diagnosed Plaintiff with rheumatoid 

arthritis and prescribed Naproxen without conducting preliminary tests to determine whether 

Plaintiff would be susceptible to any side effects. Subsequently, Plaintiff developed severe 

abdominal pains. 

On January 25, 2019, Plaintiff met with RN Borbolla regarding the pain, but she insisted it 

was only a stomach virus; she did not order any lab tests. He saw her a second time regarding the 

pain on January 31 and insisted that she order tests. On Plaintiff’s third visit to medical on February 

5, Dr. Pearce misread the test results and informed Plaintiff that his appendix was causing the pain. 

Case 1:19-cv-01698-HBK Document 8 Filed 06/04/20 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

Somehow, Plaintiff was then referred to the emergency room where the doctor read the labs and 

immediately sent Plaintiff to an outside hospital. There, it was determined that bleeding ulcers 

caused by the Naproxen were causing the severe abdominal pains. 

III. Discussion

Where a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claims arise in the context of medical care, the 

prisoner must allege and prove “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). An Eighth 

Amendment medical claim has two elements: “the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and 

the nature of the defendant’s response to that need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 

(9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th 

Cir. 1997) (en banc).

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 v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 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 draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Thus, a defendant 

is liable if he knows that plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk 

by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. “It is enough that the official acted 

or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of harm.” Id. at 842.

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a 

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be 

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause 

of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 

429 U.S. at 105–06). “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating 

a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth 

Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the 

victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 

Case 1:19-cv-01698-HBK Document 8 Filed 06/04/20 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

1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 

1990). Additionally, a prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or treatment does not support 

a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

Delays in providing medical care may manifest deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. 

at 104-05. To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from a delay in providing care, a 

plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. See Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056, 1057 (9th 

Cir. 1994); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059; Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 

1990); Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). In this 

regard, “[a] prisoner need not show his harm was substantial; however, such would provide 

additional support for the inmate’s claim that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to his 

needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see also McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 

1060. In addition, a physician need not fail to treat an inmate altogether in order to violate that 

inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 

1989) (per curiam). A failure to competently treat a serious medical condition, even if some 

treatment is prescribed, may constitute deliberate indifference in a particular case. Id.

Plaintiff accuses Dr. Pearce and RN Borbolla of being deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs: Dr. Pearce is accused of failing to conduct preliminary tests before 

prescribing Naproxen and RN Borbolla is accused of failing to properly investigate and determine 

the cause of his pain for approximately two weeks. Unfortunately, there is no constitutional 

violation on these facts as there is no suggestion that these Defendants were aware of a substantial 

risk of serious harm that they purposefully disregarded. At best, Plaintiff’s claim sounds in 

negligence or medical malpractice, but, as noted, “a complaint that a physician has been negligent 

in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment 

under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation 

merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to 

state a claim against either Defendant.

Case 1:19-cv-01698-HBK Document 8 Filed 06/04/20 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

IV. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court will 

grant Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-

49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff does not wish to amend, he may instead file a notice of voluntary 

dismissal, and the action then will be terminated by operation of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

Alternatively, Plaintiff may forego amendment and notify the Court that he wishes to stand on his 

complaint. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff may 

elect to forego amendment). If the last option is chosen, the undersigned will issue findings and 

recommendations to dismiss the complaint, Plaintiff will have an opportunity to object, and the 

matter will be decided by a District Judge. 

If Plaintiff opts to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts resulted in a deprivation 

of his constitutional rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter . . . to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555 (2007)). Plaintiff should note that although he has been granted the opportunity to amend his 

complaint, it is not for the purposes of adding new and unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff should carefully review this screening order and focus his efforts 

on curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint 

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once an 

amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves a function in the case. Id.

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement 

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly titled, in 

bold font, “First Amended Complaint,” reference the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Case 1:19-cv-01698-HBK Document 8 Filed 06/04/20 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

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file either a 

first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order, 

a notice of voluntary dismissal, or a notice of election to stand on the complaint; and 

2. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, 

the Court will recommend the action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

obey a court order and failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01698-HBK Document 8 Filed 06/04/20 Page 6 of 6