Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00364/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00364-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Avalos
Plaintiff
N. Hashemi
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

ALBERT AVALOS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

N. HASHEMI,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:16-cv-00364-BAM (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff Albert Avalos (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on March 

18, 2016, is currently before the Court for screening. 

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

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks 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).

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 

Case 1:16-cv-00364-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, 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). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 

sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); 

Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility 

that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short 

of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

The events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). Plaintiff names CSATF employee 

Dr. N. Hashemi as the defendant (“Defendant”), in both his/her individual and official capacities. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

1. At all times relevant to his claim, Albert Avalos was incarcerated at the 

Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran 

California within this District.

2. At all time relevant to this claim state actor Defendant Dr. N. Hashemi was 

assigned as Plaintiff Primary Care Physician (PCP).

3. Plaintiff injured his left shoulder on June 14, 2014, while engaged in prison 

work.

4. On June 14, 2014, plaintiff had an X-ray performed. The x-ray revealed no 

bone fracture and Dr. J. Metts alleged the shoulder would heal in 90 days. Dr. 

N. Hashemi concurred with Dr. Metts professional judgment on the shoulder 

healing in 90 days.

5. In March of 2015 plaintiff had a MRI, which discovered rotator cuff tear of 

left shoulder.

6. Plaintiff was subjected to Cruel and Unusual punishment in violation of the 

Eight Amendment for Dr. N. Hashemi refusal to provide pain medications of a 

shoulder injury plaintiff sustained while he was engaged in prison work.

7. Dr. N. Hashemi was deliberate indifference to plaintiff medical needs based 

on delaying treatment from June 14, 2014 to March 2015.

Case 1:16-cv-00364-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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. Dr. N. Hashemi failed to prescribe adequate medication for his pain, even 

though he was in excruciating pain.

9. Dr. N. Hashemi lack of appropriate medical treatment resulted in the loss off 

70% (percent) of plaintiff movement of his left arm, which left him permanent 

disabled.

10. Dr. N. Hashemi was aware of plaintiff’s need for prescribes pain medications, 

based on conversation he had with Dr. N. Hashemi, and the contents of his 

internal appeal.

11. Dr. N. Hashemi refused to evaluate plaintiff after the incident of June 14, 

2014, and said there nothing wrong with your shoulder.

12. Plaintiff informed Dr. N. Hashemi that his shoulder is worsening, causing 

daily pain and he received no treatment for over nine (9) months, and despite 

Dr. N. Hashemi awareness of the injured shoulder, and plaintiff request for 

pain medications, plaintiff was continued to be ignored by Dr. N. Hashemi for 

approximately nine (9) months.

13. Plaintiff suffered physical injury to his left arm, which caused him permanent 

damage to his left arm.

(ECF No. 1, p. 2) (unedited text). Plaintiff asserts claims for deliberate indifference in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, 

prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. 

III. Discussion

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth 

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Ibid. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57.

Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but does not contain a plain statement of his claims. It is 

disjointed, confusing, and contains conclusory allegations with little to no factual support.

Plaintiff’s complaint is unclear as to, inter alia, the number of times Plaintiff visited Defendant

for medical help, the extent to which Defendant refused to provide medication, who conducted 

Case 1:16-cv-00364-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

the MRI, the extent to which Defendant was familiar with Plaintiff’s administrative appeals, and 

whether Defendant was even the treating physician for Plaintiff’s initial injury.

B. Official Capacity – Eleventh Amendment

Plaintiff attempts to sue Defendant in both his individual and official capacities. 

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits for monetary damages against a State, its 

agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities. Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 

488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). A suit against a state official in his official capacity 

equates to a suit against the state employing that official, Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 

S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991), effectively barring a plaintiff from suing on these grounds. 

However, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit for monetary damages against a state 

official sued in his individual capacity. Id.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in his official capacity are tantamount to suing the 

State. As a result, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in his official capacity cannot stand, and 

are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, Plaintiff is not precluded from suing 

Defendant for monetary damages in his individual capacity.

C. Eighth Amendment – Denial of Medical Care

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an 

inmate must show “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291 

(1976)). The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious 

medical need’ by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further 

significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. 

Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and 

fails to adequately respond. Simmons v. Navajo County, Arizona, 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 

2010). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019; Toguchi 

v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). The prison official must be aware of facts from 

which he could make an inference that “a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he must 

Case 1:16-cv-00364-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 6
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

make the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994). 

Further, negligence, inadvertence, or differences of medical opinion between the prisoner and 

health care providers, however, do not violate the Eighth Amendment. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 

90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Lyons v. 

Busi, 566 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1191-1192 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated a claim for deliberate indifference 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant. For the same reasons stated above, 

Plaintiff’s complaint is disjointed, confusing, and contains conclusory allegations with little to no

factual support. As the complaint currently stands, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has 

stated a claim for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

D. Declaratory Relief

In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights were 

violated. “A declaratory judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as 

a matter of judicial discretion, exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of 

Lakewood Village, 333 U.S. 426, 431 (1948). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will 

neither serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate 

the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” 

United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). In the event that this action 

reaches trial and the jury returns a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, that verdict will be a finding that 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated. Accordingly, a declaration that Defendant violated 

Plaintiff’s rights is unnecessary.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendant, in either his individual or official capacity. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the 

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff must state what the 

Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right 

Case 1:16-cv-00364-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 5 of 6
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

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

also may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

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

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted;

3. 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; 

and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00364-AWI-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/14/16 Page 6 of 6