Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00491/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00491-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruby Carter
Defendant
Easman
Defendant
Keith Luckett
Plaintiff
Mule Creek State Prison
Defendant
Orr
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 

KEITH LUCKETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RUBY CARTER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0491 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By 

order filed November 4, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and he was given the options of 

amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on cognizable claims only. ECF No. 5. 

Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 6. 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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). A 

claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 

an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. 

at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an 

arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 2:24-cv-00491-DJC-AC Document 7 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 5
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 

In order 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.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[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). A claim upon which the 

court can grant relief has 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, the court must accept the allegations as true, 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Factual Allegations of the First Amended Complaint 

The first amended complaint is identical to the original, except that plaintiff now pleads 

compliance with the Government Claims Act. Compare ECF No. 1 with ECF No. 6. As in the 

original, plaintiff alleges defendants Carter, Easman, Orr, and Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) 

violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and that Carter committed medical malpractice. 

ECF No. 6. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that on February 7, 2023, Carter, a licensed vocational 

nurse, negligently administered the wrong medication, despite plaintiff alerting her that the 

medication she had did not appear to be the one he was prescribed. Id. at 3. Shortly thereafter, 

plaintiff began feeling sick and it was later discovered that he was in fact injected with the wrong 

medication. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff was seen by a doctor, who explained the situation and instructed 

him to go “man down” in the event his symptoms got worse. Id. at 4. When plaintiff later 

followed the doctor’s instructions, Easman refused to summon emergency medical care and 

instead instructed plaintiff to walk to the medical clinic, where Orr refused to allow plaintiff into 

the clinic. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff lost consciousness in front of the clinic where he was later 

awakened and assisted by other inmates. Id. at 5-6. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00491-DJC-AC Document 7 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 5
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 

III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

After conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court finds that 

plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for medical malpractice against Carter, and Eighth 

Amendment claims against Easman for failing to summon emergency medical assistance and 

against Orr for refusing to let plaintiff into the clinic. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

However, the allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to state a claim for deliberate 

indifference against Carter or any claim for relief against MCSP. With respect to Carter, while 

plaintiff has stated a claim for medical malpractice against her, to the extent he is also attempting 

to state a claim for deliberate indifference, “[m]ere indifference, negligence, or medical 

malpractice” will not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & 

Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As 

to defendant MCSP, the prison is an arm of the state and therefore immune from suit. See 

Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990) (“[T]he State and arms of the State, which have 

traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in 

either federal court or state court.” (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 

(1989)) 

V. No Leave to Amend 

Leave to amend should be granted if it appears possible that the defects in the complaint 

could be corrected, especially if a plaintiff is pro se. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint 

cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to amend. Cato v. United 

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The undersigned finds that, as set forth above, the complaint fails to state a claim for 

deliberate indifference against Carter or any claims against MCSP. Plaintiff has already been 

given an opportunity to amend the complaint and advised what kind of information he needed to 

provide. Since the amended complaint is identical to the original except for the addition of 

alleged compliance with the government claims act, it does not appear that further amendment 

Case 2:24-cv-00491-DJC-AC Document 7 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 5
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 

would result in further cognizable claims. As a result, leave to amend would be futile and the 

Eighth Amendment claim against Carter and all claims against MCSP should be dismissed 

without leave to amend. 

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 

 This case is going forward on your medical malpractice claim against defendant Carter 

and your Eighth Amendment claims against Easman and Orr. It is being recommended that the 

deliberate indifference claim against Carter and all claims against MCSP be dismissed without 

leave to amend because you have not added any facts to support a deliberate indifference claim 

against Carter and MCSP is immune. 

CONCLUSION 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The allegations of the first amended complaint state claims for medical malpractice 

against defendant Carter and for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment 

against defendants Easman and Orr. Service is appropriate for these defendants. 

2. E-service on defendants Carter, Easman, and Orr will be directed by separate order. 

Plaintiff should not complete service paperwork for this defendant unless ordered to do so by the 

court. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 

action. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim against 

defendant Carter and all claims against defendant Mule Creek State Prison be dismissed without 

leave to amend. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

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

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 

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

//// 

Case 2:24-cv-00491-DJC-AC Document 7 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 5
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 

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 3, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00491-DJC-AC Document 7 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 5