Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02052/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02052-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amy Adams
Defendant
Jeff Healy
Plaintiff
Sahir Naseer
Defendant
G. Williams
Defendant
Shagufta Yasmeen
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFF HEALY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHAGUFTA YASMEEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-CV-2052-WBS-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1).

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 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

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 

impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 

and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

In its June 15, 2020, screening order, the Court summarized Plaintiff’s allegations 

as follows: 

Plaintiff names five defendants: (1) Dr. Shagufta Yasmeen, 

(2) Dr. Sahir Naseer, (3) Dr. G. Williams, (4) Dr. Amy Adams, and (5) the 

unidentified manufacturer/distributor of “Gadolinium” contrast dye. 

Plaintiff, a prisoner at California Health Care Facility, is 

medically disabled and utilizes a wheelchair. Beginning in 2015, Plaintiff 

has routinely complained to defendants Yasmeen and Naseer about 

various afflictions that cause him to feel severe chronic pain. Plaintiff 

alleges defendants Yasmeen and Nasser violated his Eighth Amendment 

rights by refusing to treat the medical needs he has brought to their 

attention. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that defendant Williams, along 

with defendants Yasmeen and Nasser, interfered with plaintiff’s previous 

pain-related treatment by discontinuing his pain medication with falsified 

documentation. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Adams acted with 

deliberate indifference towards plaintiff’s serious medical needs by failing 

to act upon plaintiff’s request. Finally, plaintiff alleges that the 

manufacturer/distributor of “Gadolinium” contrast dye, used on plaintiff 

during an MRI scan, was aware of the harmful effects it caused when the 

dye fails to exit the body.

Claim I – Plaintiff’s Left Knee 

Plaintiff suffers chronic pain in his left knee due to a 

torn/missing anterior cruciate ligament, a torn medial collateral ligament, a 

torn/missing meniscus, and severe degenerative joint disease. Despite 

plaintiff complaining since 2015, defendants Yasmeen and Naseer refuse 

to remedy his injuries or treat his pain. Plaintiff acknowledges, however, 

defendants repeatedly informed him that he is unfit for any surgeries, and 

plaintiff asserts that nothing less than total left knee replacement surgery 

would repair his knee. 

Claim II – Plaintiff’s Right Foot and Ankle 

Plaintiff suffers from chronic pain in his right foot and 

ankle due to an incident from 2005. Plaintiff began complaining to 

defendants Yasmeen and Naseer about his foot and ankle in 2015, but they 

ignored his complaints. On June 21, 2016, plaintiff fell, further injuring 

his right foot and ankle. An x-ray examination of plaintiff’s foot showed 

he suffered a possible fracture, but defendants refused to order an x-ray of 

plaintiff’s ankle despite plaintiff’s protest. On April 30, 2017, defendant 

Naseer finally ordered an x-ray of plaintiff’s ankle that revealed the loss of 

the subtalar joint suggesting collapse or malalignment in his ankle. 

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 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

According to plaintiff, defendants Yasmeen and Naseer refuse to remedy 

the injury or treat his pain. 

Claim III – Plaintiff’s Spine 

Plaintiff alleges he routinely complained to defendants 

Yasmeen, Naseer, and Williams about severe chronic pain in his neck and 

back, general loss of mobility, and the loss of feeling/strength in his arms 

and legs. Plaintiff attributes his ailments to the damage and deterioration 

of the lumbar and cervical regions of his spine. After one and a half years 

of complaints to defendant Naseer, plaintiff underwent an MRI of the 

lumbar region of his spine on October 24, 2018. The MRI showed bodily

damage. However, plaintiff alleges defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and 

Williams refused to discuss remedying his spine or treating the pain the 

injury causes him. Furthermore, plaintiff contends that defendants ignored 

the pain he feels in the cervical region of his spine.

Claim IV – Plaintiff’s Lower Leg Wounds 

Plaintiff alleges defendant Yasmeen refused to supply 

plaintiff with dressing supplies to treat wounds on his lower legs caused 

by reduced circulation. Plaintiff also alleges he has been unable to use 

dressing due to the pain they cause him after defendants Yasmeen, 

Williams, and Naseer discontinued his pain medication. Defendants 

prevention of plaintiff from using compression dressing, he alleges, 

exacerbated the wounds on his legs. Plaintiff also claims defendant Adams 

prevented treatment of his wounds after he wrote her a letter regarding his 

situation, dated December 25, 2016. 

Claim V – Plaintiff’s Left Shoulder 

In January 2016, plaintiff injured his left shoulder. After 

weeks of complaints from plaintiff, defendant Yasmeen ordered an x-ray. 

The x-ray’s results showed plaintiff likely suffered a rotator cuff injury. 

Despite the x-ray’s results and plaintiff telling defendant Yasmeen that he 

felt a muscle tear, defendant Yasmeen refused to evaluate the shoulder 

anymore, arbitrarily attributing plaintiff’s injury to arthritis. Defendants 

Yasmeen and Williams reported that plaintiff was non-compliant and 

faking his symptoms when he failed to perform physical therapy exercises. 

On December 13, 2016, after eleven months of plaintiff 

complaining about his shoulder, defendant Yasmeen ordered an MRI of 

plaintiff’s shoulder. The MRI results showed that plaintiff suffered five 

tears in his shoulder. Defendant Naseer ruled out surgery to fix plaintiff’s 

shoulder since he believed plaintiff was unfit to undergo any surgical 

procedure. However, Naseer never allowed plaintiff to see specialists who 

could perform a surgical viability evaluation. Defendant Naseer sent 

plaintiff to physical therapy again. The physical therapist stated that the 

damage to plaintiff’s left shoulder was too extensive for physical therapy 

to be of any benefit. 

In November 2017, plaintiff’s left shoulder became 

partially dislocated, showing that its condition was worsening. Plaintiff 

became increasingly reliant on his right arm and was having difficulty 

performing daily activities. In late 2018, plaintiff suffered an injury to his 

right shoulder. Plaintiff complained to defendant Naseer on a weekly basis 

for six months before defendant Naseer ordered an MRI. The results of the 

MRI on May 8, 2019 showed two tears, narrowing joint space, and 

cartilage loss. Defendant Williams falsely reported that plaintiff lied about 

his range of motion abilities, preventing plaintiff from receiving treatment.

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 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

Claim VI – Plaintiff’s Bedside Commode 

Plaintiff has fallen on multiple occasions while transferring 

between his wheelchair and toilet, causing injuries, like the damage to his 

right foot and ankle described in claim II. An occupational therapist 

recommended plaintiff use a bedside commode to help him transfer 

between his wheelchair and toilet on September 23, 2015. Defendants 

Yasmeen, Williams, and Naseer refused to supply plaintiff with the 

commode for years. 

Defendant Yasmeen did not provide any justification for 

not supplying the commode. Defendant Williams stated that the commode 

would be unsafe and unstable despite plaintiff using one in the shower 

without any problems and plaintiff already falling without the toilet 

commode. Defendant Williams falsely reported that plaintiff previously 

refused a bedside commode. Defendant Naseer also refused to supply 

plaintiff with the commode without justification. Finally, plaintiff detailed 

the aforementioned issues to defendant Adams with defendants Yasmeen, 

Williams, and Naseer in his letter, dated December 25, 2016. 

On April 12, 2018, plaintiff was supplied a commode by an 

unidentified physician, and has not fallen while transferring between the 

toilet and wheelchair since. 

Claim VII - Plaintiff’s Photophobia 

Plaintiff suffers from severe photophobia. Plaintiff used to 

have solar shield sunglasses and accommodations to his cell that helped 

his condition. Although the sunglasses and accommodations were 

supposed to be permanent, unidentified officers decided they were 

supposed to be renewed. Defendant Yasmeen refused to renew plaintiff’s 

treatment. After nine to ten months of complaints from plaintiff, defendant 

Naseer ordered an incorrect pair of solar shield sunglasses and refused to 

order the correct kind. Plaintiff informed defendant Adams of the 

aforementioned issues in his letter, dated December 25, 2016.

Claim VIII – Plaintiff’s Medication 

In May 2016, defendant Yasmeen reduced plaintiff’s 

Methadone dosage. Defendants Yasmeen and Williams falsified 

documents to justify the dosage reduction. Eventually, defendant Naseer 

discontinued plaintiff’s prescribed dosage, while also using false 

information as justification. Defendant Naseer also discontinued plaintiff’s 

medication used to treat his neuropathic pain. Finally, defendants Naseer 

and Yasmeen refused to prescribe medication to treat plaintiff’s migraines. 

Claim IX – Ambulance 

Since 2012, plaintiff has been transported to outside 

medical appointments by ambulance. An ambulance allows for a reclined 

body position and correct levels of oxygen supplementation. Defendants 

Yasmeen and Naseer refuse to order transportation by ambulance for 

plaintiff, causing plaintiff to miss many appointments, including four leg 

surgeries. Defendant Williams also wrote false reports concerning 

plaintiff’s transportation needs that ignored his supplemental oxygen 

requirements. 

ADA vans are the alternative mode of transportation 

provided to plaintiff, but the vans do not provide reclined transport, 

sufficient oxygen, nor adequate space to elevate his legs in his wheelchair 

during transportation. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 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

Claim X – Gadolinium 

Plaintiff was injected with “Gadolinium” contrast dye 

during MRI examinations on October 10, 2018 and January 2, 2019. Soon 

after the October 10, 2018 MRI, plaintiff complained to defendant Naseer 

about new and unusual bone/joint pain and fuzzy thought processes. 

Defendant dismissed plaintiff’s concerns as symptoms of arthritis and 

refused to address plaintiff’s diminished mental capabilities. In February 

2019, plaintiff learned his issues aligned with symptoms of “Gadolinium” 

failing to leave the body. Plaintiff alleges defendants Naseer and 

manufacturer/distributor of “Gadolinium” were aware of the harmful 

effects of its use, and never informed plaintiff prior to it being used on 

him.

ECF No. 9, pgs. 2-6.

II. DISCUSSION

On June 15, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that he 

stated some cognizable claims and other non-cognizable claims. See ECF No. 9. Specifically, the 

Court found:

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to state cognizable claims that 

defendants Yasmeen, Naseer and Williams violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs in claims II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, and X. The Court, however, 

finds that all other claims against all other defendants fail to make out a 

valid claim under § 1983.

ECF No. 9, pg. 7.

As to defendant Adams, who is alleged to be the Chief Medical Officer, the Court 

stated:

Plaintiff’s complaint against defendant Adams for not 

intervening on his behalf after plaintiff wrote her a letter also fails to state 

a cognizable claim. 

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 

for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under 

§ 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional violations of 

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See 

id. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant 

can be liable based on knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s 

unconstitutional conduct because government officials, regardless of their 

title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct and 

not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). 

Supervisory personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy 

itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and the moving force behind 

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 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

a constitutional violation may, however, be liable even where such 

personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v. 

Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).

When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal 

link between such defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must 

be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 

1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and 

conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory 

personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of 

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that 

each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual 

actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676. 

Plaintiff contends he wrote defendant Adams a letter 

detailing his allegedly unconstitutional treatment by the other defendants 

in claims IV, VI, and VII, and that she had the authority to fix his 

situation. However, mere acquiescence on the part of defendant Adams 

does not suffice to hold her liable under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff 

never alleges defendant Adams directed any of the other defendants, nor 

does plaintiff claim that she implemented a policy that encouraged their 

alleged unconstitutional treatment.

ECF No. 9, pgs. 9-10.

The Court also addressed plaintiff’s claim against the manufacturer/distributor of 

Gadolinium:

Although plaintiff never identifies the manufacturer/

distributor of “Gadolinium,” the manufacturer/distributor likely being a 

private entity means plaintiff cannot sue the defendant under § 1983. In 

order to raise a § 1983 claim against any defendant, the defendant must 

allegedly cause plaintiff injury while acting under color of state law. 

Generally, private parties are not acting under color of state law. See Price 

v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff never alleges 

that the manufacturer/distributor of “Gadolinium” acted under color of 

state law nor conspired with state officials to deprive plaintiff of his 

constitutional rights. Therefore, plaintiff does not cognizable claim against 

defendant in Claim X.

Id. at 10.

As to Claim I, the Court concluded:

Plaintiff’s allegations in claim I attempt to hold defendants 

Yasmeen and Naseer liable for negligence or medical malpractice, rather 

than deliberate indifference to his damaged knee. Plaintiff states that 

nothing less than total left knee replacement surgery would suffice to 

repair the damage to his left knee. Defendants Yasmeen and Naseer found 

that plaintiff is unfit for any type of surgery due to the condition of his 

heart and lungs. Despite plaintiff’s claim that he has never been seen by a 

specialist for a surgical viability evaluation, plaintiff does not allege that 

defendants Yasmeen and Naseer are unqualified to diagnose plaintiff as 

unfit for the surgery. Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical 

condition does not give rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 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

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.

ECF No. 9, pg. 9.

Finally, as to Claim VIII, the Court held:

Plaintiff’s allegations in claim VIII are another attempt to 

hold defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and Williams liable for negligence or 

medical malpractice. Although plaintiff’s medications were reduced and 

discontinued, negligence in diagnosing or treating plaintiff does not 

amount to deliberate indifference of his serious illnesses. The difference of 

opinion between plaintiff and defendants regarding the reduction and 

discontinuation of his medication did not violate his Eighth Amendment 

rights. See Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332.

Id.

The Court ordered that Plaintiff may either amend his complaint to remedy the 

deficiencies therein or elect to proceed on his otherwise cognizable claims. Id. No amended 

complaint followed. Therefore, the Court now recommends dismissal of the defective claims 

identified above, as well as dismissal of all claims against defendant Adams and the 

manufacturer/distributor of Gadolinium. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be 

cured by amending the complaint, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of 

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that:

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of medical 

indifference against Defendants Yasmeen, Naseer, and Williams, as specified in the Court’s June 

15, 2020, order;

2. All other claims and Defendants be dismissed. 

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 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 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

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: September 14, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02052-DMC Document 13 Filed 09/14/20 Page 8 of 8