Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00271-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew
Defendant
D. Coggins
Defendant
Franco
Defendant
Cesar Mendoza-Hernandez
Plaintiff
Scott
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CESAR MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. COGGINS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-00271-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND RESPONSES, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A CLAIM

(Docs. 5, 9, and 10)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Cesar Mendoza-Hernandez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil action on August 8, 2014, in the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. (Doc. 1.) On February 19, 2015, the district court 

severed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Coggins, Franco, Scott, and Andrews, which arose 

from events at United States Penitentiary-Atwater, and transferred that portion of the action to this 

court. (Doc. 13.)

The Court is required to screen Plaintiff=s complaint and dismiss the case, in whole or in 

part, if the Court determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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 1:15-cv-00271-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 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

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

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

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). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff=s claims must be facially plausible to 

survive screening, 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 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 (quotation marks 

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

II. Discussion

A. Summary of Allegations

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at FCI Phoenix in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff filed an 

amended complaint on September 15, 2014, in which he alleged claims for the abuse of his human 

rights against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (Doc. 5.) In response to the “United States 

Magistrate Judge’s Questionnaire,” filed on September 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed two responses on 

October 14, 2014, and November 12, 2014. (Docs. 7, 9, 10.) In those responses, Plaintiff alleges 

that on September 18, 2012, Defendants Coggins, Scott, and Andrews altered his records at USPAtwater by falsifying the name and address of an emergency contact. (Doc. 9, pp. 2, 4; Doc. 10, 

p. 1.) On March 22, 2013, Defendant Franco allegedly discriminated against Plaintiff and kicked 

him out of the medical department for no reason. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to go to the 

hospital for testing. (Id.)

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00271-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 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

B. Bivens Claim Deficiencies

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner and it appears he is bringing suit pursuant to Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971), 

which, under limited circumstances, provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal 

actors. Minneci v. Pollard, __ U.S. __, __, 132 S.Ct. 617, 621 (2012). However, Plaintiff may not 

sue the Federal Bureau of Prison because a Bivens action may not be brought against a federal 

agency. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486, 114 S.Ct. 996 (1994).

Plaintiff may sue individual prison employees for damages under Bivens, but he must link 

each named defendant to a violation of his constitutional rights; there is no respondeat superior

liability under Bivens. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 

2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012); Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Here, Plaintiff’s vague allegation of a falsified emergency contact does not state a claim for relief

against Defendants Coggins, Scott, and Andrews. Assuming such a claim would be grounded in 

the Due Process Clause, Plaintiff has not identified the existence of any protected liberty interest 

with respect to his emergency contact information. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 

S.Ct. 2384 (2005); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Next, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation of discrimination and interference with medical care 

also fails to state a claim for relief against Defendant Franco. The Equal Protection Clause 

requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne 

Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 (1985); Hartmann v. California Dep’t of 

Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 

(9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). To state a claim, Plaintiff 

must show that Defendant Franco intentionally discriminated against him based on his 

membership in a protected class. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; 

Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 

686 (9th Cir. 2001).

While respect to medical care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison 

official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 

Case 1:15-cv-00271-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 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

681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 

F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122; Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails 

more than ordinary lack of due care, Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks 

omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122, and medical malpractice does not become a constitutional 

violation merely because the victim is a prisoner, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 

285 (1977) (quotation marks omitted); Snow, 681 F.3d at 987-88; Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s amended complaint and responses fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file a second amended complaint, 

assuming he believes in good faith he can cure the deficiencies identified. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 

F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff 

may not add new claims or parties, and he is limited to amending his claims against staff at USPAtwater.1

 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be brief, but it must state the factual bases for 

Plaintiff’s claims against the named defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342; Doe

I, 572 F.3d at 681. Plaintiff must alleges facts demonstrating the individual involvement of each 

named defendant in the violation of his rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77, and although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level. . . ,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). Finally, the amended complaint will 

supersede the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff’s unrelated claims may be subject to further severance but given Plaintiff’s failure to state any cognizable 

claims, the Court will defer any determination regarding the propriety of further severance until it reviews the second 

amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George, 

507 F.3d at 607. 

Case 1:15-cv-00271-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint and responses are dismissed, with leave to amend, 

for failure to state a claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a Bivens complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

second amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00271-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 5