Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01689/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01689-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAUL BALLESTEROS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. CRUZ, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01689 DLB

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Saul Ballesteros (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on November 6, 2015. 

Pursuant to Court order, he filed a First Amended Complaint on March 21, 2016. Plaintiff names 

Fresno County Jail LVN C. Cruz and the Fresno County Jail as Defendants.

1

A. SCREENING STANDARD

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or 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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on December 3, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 8
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

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 

other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions 

or omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present 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). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT2

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Wasco State Prison. The events occurred while he was 

a pretrial detainee held at the Fresno County Jail. 

Plaintiff contends that he filed grievances, and asked and begged for assistance. However, 

Defendant Cruz asked, “what kinda weird sex” Plaintiff was having, and told him that he needed 

to change his lifestyle. ECF No. 7, at 3. Plaintiff told Defendant Cruz that he had muscle spasms, 

 

2

 Plaintiff cites exhibits, though there are no documents attached to his First Amended Complaint.

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 8
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

blood in his stool, dizziness, lack of appetite and a burning sensation in his intestine. He also told 

her that at any given moment, he could defecate on himself. 

When Plaintiff transferred to Wasco State Prison, a doctor who performed Plaintiff’s 

physical changed the course of treatment given at the Fresno County Jail. He also questioned why 

Plaintiff was not “looked after more closely,” stating that he should have seen a doctor at the 

Fresno County Jail and had an x-ray. ECF No. 7, at 4. The doctor told Plaintiff that if his 

intestinal problems persisted, he may need surgery. 

Plaintiff further contends that the Fresno County Jail allowed Defendant Cruz to provide 

poor and insufficient care. 

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff contends that Defendants were negligent and gave 

insufficient treatment because they did not allow him to see a doctor or go to the hospital. He 

requests monetary damages, and asks that the Fresno County Jail (1) change their procedures for 

handling medical treatment; and (2) reprimand Defendant Cruz.

C. DISCUSSION

1. Fresno County Jail

A local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a 

respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 

691, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (1978); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Webb 

v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2003); Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 

1185 (9th Cir. 2002). Rather, a local government unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the 

injury complained of. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1185. 

Generally, a claim against a local government unit for municipal or county liability 

requires an allegation that “a deliberate policy, custom, or practice . . . was the ‘moving force’ 

behind the constitutional violation . . . suffered.” Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 

667 (9th Cir. 2007); City of Canton, Ohio, v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (1989). 

Alternatively, and more difficult to prove, municipal liability may be imposed where the local 

government unit’s omission led to the constitutional violation by its employee. Gibson, 290 F.3d 

at 1186. Under this route to municipal liability, the “plaintiff must show that the municipality’s 

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 8
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

deliberate indifference led to its omission and that the omission caused the employee to commit 

the constitutional violation.” Id. Deliberate indifference requires a showing “that the municipality 

was on actual or constructive notice that its omissions would likely result in a constitutional 

violation.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff names the Fresno County Jail as Defendant Cruz’s employer, alleging that it 

“allowed” Defendant Cruz to provide poor and insufficient medical care. ECF No. 7, at 4. As 

explained above, the Fresno County Jail cannot be held liable for Defendant Cruz’s actions under 

a theory of respondeat superior. Although Plaintiff asks that the Fresno County Jail change its 

procedures in his request for relief, he sets forth no facts to suggest that a policy, custom or 

practice was the cause of the alleged violation, or that any omission led to Defendant Cruz’s 

alleged acts.

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim against the Fresno County Jail.

2. Medical Care

Although pretrial detainees rights are protected under the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment, the standard is the same as the standard applied to convicted prisoners 

under the Eighth Amendment. Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th 

Cir. 2010); Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1242-1244 (9th Cir. 2010 ); Frost 

v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 

2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 

2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that 

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

wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately 

indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096).

///

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 8
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

Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a 

prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation 

and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122.

Plaintiff alleges that he informed Defendant Cruz of his medical issues, but rather than 

offer treatment, Defendant Cruz commented on his personal life. Plaintiff suggests that Defendant 

Cruz ignored his problems and/or mistreated him. However, “unethical,” “insufficient,” “poor” or 

“negligent” care, ECF No. 7, at 3-5, without additional facts, does not rise to the level of an Eighth 

Amendment violation. An Eighth Amendment claim may not be premised on even gross 

negligence. Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).

While Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cruz ignored him, his allegations show that he 

received some course of treatment at the Fresno County Jail. He does not sufficiently explain 

Defendant Cruz’s role in the treatment he did, or did not, receive. Plaintiff states that he was not 

allowed to see a doctor or go to the hospital, but he does not link Defendant Cruz to any of these 

decisions. 

As the Court explained previously, Plaintiff appears to simply disagree with his treatment, 

which is insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference. “A difference of opinion between 

a physician and the prisoner - or between medical professionals - concerning what medical care is 

appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987 

(9th Cir. 2012) (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)), overruled in part on 

other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 

1986)). Rather, Plaintiff “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically 

unacceptable under the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious 

disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (citing Jackson, 90 F.3d at 

332) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff fails to make such a showing.

///

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 8
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

Finally, insofar as Plaintiff relies on the fact that his care at the Fresno County Jail was 

questioned by a doctor at Wasco State Prison, this does not mean that Defendant Cruz acted with 

the requisite state of mind in providing care to Plaintiff.

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Cruz for deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need. The Court explained the deficiencies in the prior screening 

order, but Plaintiff has not corrected them.

3. Negligence

Plaintiff attempts to hold Defendants responsible for what he classifies as negligence. In 

the prior screening order, the Court explained the issues with his negligence claim. As he has not 

made any changes, the prior analysis, repeated below, remains applicable. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original 

jurisdiction, the district court “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the 

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 

Article III,” except as provided in subsections (b) and (c).

“Under California law, ‘[t]he elements of negligence are: (1) defendant’s obligation to 

conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks 

(duty); (2) failure to conform to that standard (breach of duty); (3) a reasonably close connection 

between the defendant’s conduct and resulting injuries (proximate cause); and (4) actual loss 

(damages).’” Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 572 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting McGarry v. Sax, 158 

Cal.App.4th 983, 994, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 519 (2008) (internal quotations omitted)).

Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that any Defendant breached a duty, or that the 

breach proximately caused any injuries.

Moreover, Plaintiff is required to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act 

(“Act”), which requires that a party seeking to recover money damages from a public entity or its 

employees submit a claim to the entity before filing suit in court, generally no later than six 

months after the cause of action accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905, 911.2, 945, 950.2 (emphasis 

added). Timely claim presentation is not merely a procedural requirement of the Act, but is an 

element of a plaintiff’s cause of action. Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 6 of 8
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

(2007). Thus, when a plaintiff asserts a claim subject to the Act, he must affirmatively allege 

compliance with the claim presentation procedure, or circumstances excusing such compliance, in 

his complaint. Id.

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a negligence claim under state law. While he may amend, 

he is notified that if he does not state a federal claim, the Court will not exercise jurisdiction over a 

state law claim even if it states a claim for relief.

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims against any Defendants.

The Court will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended complaint, if he 

believes, in good faith, that he can cure the identified deficiencies. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 

1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-

49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff amends, he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 

unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607.

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, it should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but under 

section 1983, it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights and liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of 

respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr, 652 F.3d at 1205-07. 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).

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must

file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in 

this order, or file a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

///

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 7 of 8
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

8

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without

prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01689-SAB Document 8 Filed 06/08/16 Page 8 of 8