Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00557/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00557-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Candice Gish
Defendant
Thadius J. Holland
Plaintiff
Clement Ogbuehi
Defendant
Guadalupe Torres
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THADIUS J. HOLLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00557-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 15)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Thadius J. Holland (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint, and Plaintiff was granted leave to amend. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is before 

the Court for screening. (ECF No. 15.)

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

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).

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 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

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Serv., 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at Lancaster State Prison, in Lancaster, California. Plaintiff 

alleges the events in the complaint occurred while Plaintiff was housed at California Substance 

Abuse and Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff names as defendants, 

(1) Guadalupe Torres, psych tech, (2) Candice Gish, registered nurse, and (3) Clement Ogbuehi, 

nurse practitioner. Plaintiff sues each defendant in their official and individual capacities.

In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges an Eighth Amendment violation for excessive delay and denial 

of adequate medical care. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Torres refused to send Plaintiff to TTA 

for medical treatment and left Plaintiff in a pool of blood until the next day. Defendant Oghuehi 

refused to send Plaintiff for medical treatment and wrapped Plaintiff’s wounds after ripping the 

stitched trying to clean the wound. After continuing bleeding after being seen by Defendant

Oghuehi, Plaintiff was still bleeding and asked Defendant Gish to call medical about the bleeding 

and loss of blood. Defendant Gish was acting under color of law by delaying and denying 

Plaintiff’s medical needs stating that he did not need to be seen. However when Plaintiff was 

seen by Defendant Gish, finally, she was shocked at the wound and how much blood loss 

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 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

occurred. Eventually the surgeon evaluated the wound and questioned why Plaintiff was not seen 

soon and that Plaintiff needed surgery immediately.

Plaintiff went under surgery for a circumcision on November 30, 2022. During the 

aftercare treatment notes, Plaintiff was told that if he had any bleeding, if the stitches came 

undone, if there was swelling or excessive pain that he should seek medical attention as soon as 

possible. On 12/10/2022, Plaintiff’s stitches ripped off in the middle of the night which resulted 

in a lot of blood. Plaintiff told the person on duty and nurse Torres what had happened and that he 

needed to be seen per his doctor’s instructions. If the wound stayed open, there was a great risk 

of infection. Plaintiff was brushed off and was told that he would be okay and they would not see 

him for evaluation because Plaintiff had a doctor’s appointment set for that morning and to let the 

doctor know then.

The doctor saw Plaintiff around 9 am for an evaluation of the wound and the doctor saw 

the two holes where the stitches had ripped out. The doctor saw how badly the wound was 

bleeding. Plaintiff said that Plaintiff needed to be taken to the TTA. However, the doctor 

disregarded this requested and instead cleaned the wound and wrapped it. The doctor said that he 

would not send Plaintiff to TTA because the wound would heal at some point. Plaintiff explained 

what the surgeon had expressed in post operative instructions that if the stitches were to rip out, 

but the doctor ignored Plaintiff’s request and Plaintiff begged to go to TTA. Plaintiff was sent 

back to his cell to sit in blood and suffer in extreme pian.

That same night about 8:30 pm, Plaintiff started to change is wound dressing and noticed 

blood clots, chunks of blood and ongoing bleeding to the wound. Plaintiff called the third watch 

guard for help and stated he was bleeding badly and was in extreme pain and said he needed to go 

to TTA. The third watch guard stated the TTA was called and informed of Plaintiff’s requests but 

that nurse Gish was denying the request for Plaintiff to be seen as there was nothing that she 

could do for him.

Early the next day, Plaintiff told the correctional office that he need help and needed to go 

to TTA and would not take no for an answer. The ASU nurse and the correctional officer did 

their job and helped Plaintiff to TTA. The TTA nurse stated for a second time that Plaintiff did 

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 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

not need to be seen which was a disregard for his health. Once Plaintiff was seen by the TTA 

nurse, she noticed how much blood and how badly the wound looked and agreed that Plaintiff

needed to be sent to the hospital as soon as possible.

Plaintiff was transferred to the hospital where the surgeon then evaluated the wound and 

asked plaintiff why he didn’t ask for help sooner and said that Plaintiff needed surgery. Plaintiff 

said that he asked for help a number of times but was ignored. Plaintiff ended up with a total of 

six stitches to repair the wound. Plaintiff was left to suffer in pain with the possibility of losing 

his penis due to infection. All of it could have been prevented if staff had listened to Plaintiff and 

took him to be seen by the surgeon instead of dismissing him. 

As remedies, Plaintiff asks for compensatory and punitive damages and “no reprisals for 

writing this complaint.”

III. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Rule 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). 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.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (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; Moss, 

572 F.3d at 969.

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is short. Many of Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and do 

not state what happened, when it happened, or which defendant was involved. He fails to state 

the factual basis for the conclusions. 

Official Capacity

Plaintiff may not pursue his claims for monetary damages against the named defendants in 

their official capacities. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal 

court against a state, its agencies, and state officials in their official capacities.” Aholelei v. Dep’t. 

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 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

of Pub. Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). However, the Eleventh 

Amendment does not bar suits seeking damages against state officials in their personal capacities, 

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991); Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003), or 

suits for injunctive relief brought against state officials in their official capacities, Austin v. State 

Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 680 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, Plaintiff may only proceed in this 

action for monetary damages against defendants in their individual capacities.

Eighth Amendment-Medical Care

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment where the mistreatment rises to the level of “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 (1976)). The two-part test for deliberate 

indifference requires 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.

A defendant does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the defendant “knows 

of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard,” Simmons v. Navajo Cty. Ariz., 609 

F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is 

shown where there was “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible 

medical need” and the indifference caused harm. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. In applying this 

standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have 

been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ 

‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter 

Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105–06). Even gross 

negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 

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

Further, a “difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner—or between

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 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

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).

Construing the allegations, Plaintiff states a serious medical need.

And liberally construing the allegations, Plaintiff states a claim against Defendant Torres 

for delay of medical care on 12/10/22.

It is unclear from the allegations who the “doctor” is that Plaintiff saw at 9 a.m. 

Assuming it is C. Oghuechi, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against C. Ogbuechi. Plaintiff alleges 

that the doctor cleaned the wound and bandaged the wound, but did not send him to TTA. 

Plaintiff merely alleges a difference of opinion between the medical provider and the prisoner; the 

doctor gave Plaintiff some amount of medical care and told Plaintiff that the wound would heal, 

but did not give him the care Plaintiff requested. Further, Plaintiff fails to allege what care was 

provided for his complaints of pain. 

Liberally construing the allegations, Plaintiff states a claim against Defendant Gish for 

denial of care at 8:30 p.m.

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks “no reprisals” for filing his complaint. The Court construes this request as 

one for injunctive relief. Plaintiff is informed that requests for prospective relief are limited by 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act [“PLRA”], which requires that the 

Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the 

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of 

the Federal right.” In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any 

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 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

injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the 

court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the 

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Moreover, where, as here, “a plaintiff seeks a mandatory 

preliminary injunction that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should 

be extremely cautious’ about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief 

unless the facts and law clearly favor the plaintiff.” Committee of Central American Refugees v. 

I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986), quoting Martin v. International Olympic Committee, 

740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984).

IV. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for deliberate 

indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Guadalupe 

Torres, psych tech and Candice Gish, registered nurse. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any 

other cognizable claims against any other defendants. Despite being provided with the relevant 

pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure the identified deficiencies and 

further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to randomly assign a 

district judge to this action.

Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. This action proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed December 9, 2024, (ECF 

No. 15), for deliberate indifference to medical care against Defendants Guadalupe Torres, 

psych tech and Candice Gish, registered nurse, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and

2. All other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to state claims 

upon which relief may be granted.

* * *

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may 

file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed 

fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page 

number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page 

limit may not be considered. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter 

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00557-JLT-BAM Document 17 Filed 12/13/24 Page 8 of 8