Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01336/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brown
Defendant
Grant
Defendant
Joshua C. Salazar
Plaintiff
Singh
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

JOSHUA C. SALAZAR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BROWN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1336-EFB P 

ORDER GRANTING IFP AND SCREENING 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. 

Application 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). 

Screening 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. 

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

Case 2:19-cv-01336-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 02/11/20 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 

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). 

Screening Order 

In the complaint (ECF No. 1), plaintiff alleges that he broke his hand in his cell on 

January 23, 2019, while experiencing a serious mental breakdown. Plaintiff and his cellmate 

informed defendant correctional officer Brown of plaintiff’s injury and of the extreme pain 

plaintiff was experiencing. Brown responded that it was time for her to leave and did not want to 

Case 2:19-cv-01336-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 02/11/20 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 

be bothered. However, Brown’s partner, correctional officer Woods, called the medical clinic to 

report plaintiff’s injury. When plaintiff arrived at the clinic, defendant nurse Grant informed 

plaintiff that defendant doctor Singh was aware of plaintiff’s injury and had instructed that 

plaintiff allow it to heal on its own. Plaintiff complained to Grant about the excruciating pain but 

she provided him with no medical care. Five days after sustaining the injury, plaintiff was seen 

by Dr. Singh, who said there was nothing he could do. After complaining for weeks, plaintiff was 

finally sent to an outside hospital where a cast was put on his hand. Plaintiff claims that 

defendants Brown, Grant, and Singh were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

To establish deliberate indifference for purposes of an Eighth Amendment claim, a 

claimant must allege that: (1) he had a serious medical need; and (2) that defendant’s response to 

that need was deliberately indifferent. See Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 

2012). “Prison officials are indifferent to prisoners’ serious medical needs when they deny, 

delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 

1066 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Grant and Singh are sufficient to 

survive screening. Brown’s alleged failure to initially summon medical care, however, does not 

constitute deliberate indifference unless plaintiff can show that her conduct led to further injury. 

See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, plaintiff may either proceed only on the potentially cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claims against defendants Grant and Singh or he may amend his complaint to 

attempt to cure the complaint’s deficiencies. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint. 

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). 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01336-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 02/11/20 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 

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. 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)). 

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 Local Rule 110. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) 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. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, for screening purposes, a viable Eighth Amendment 

claims against defendants Grant and Singh. 

4. All other claims in the complaint are dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days 

from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his 

complaint. 

5. Within thirty days plaintiff shall return the notice below advising the court whether he 

elects to proceed with the cognizable claims or file an amended complaint. If the 

former option is selected and returned, the court will enter an order directing service at 

that time. 

Case 2:19-cv-01336-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 02/11/20 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 

6. Failure to comply with any part of this order may result in dismissal of this action. 

DATED: February 11, 2020. 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-01336-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 02/11/20 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSHUA C. SALAZAR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BROWN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1336-EFB P 

NOTICE 

In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby elects to: 

(1) ______ proceed only with the Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Grant and 

Singh; 

OR 

 

 (2) ______ delay serving any defendant and files an amended complaint. 

 

 

 _________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Dated: 

Case 2:19-cv-01336-TLN-JDP Document 5 Filed 02/11/20 Page 6 of 6