Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00602-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donna Lee Andrews
Plaintiff
Lee
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

DONNA LEE ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEE,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-00602-KES-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM

Doc. 9

Plaintiff Donna Lee Andrews is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth 

Amendment, alleging that her leg was injured after Nurse Lee failed to provide her with a proper 

wheelchair. Doc. 1. On August 20, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s 

complaint and issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, 

with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 9. 

The findings and recommendations found that “Plaintiff’s allegations do not rise to the level of a 

constitutional claim for deliberate indifference, rather than negligence.” Id. at 5. Specifically, they 

found that plaintiff’s allegations “do not show that Lee acted purposefully to harm or disregard 

Plaintiff’s medical need” or “indicat[e] that Lee was aware of an excessive risk to Plaintiff’s safety by 

Case 1:24-cv-00602-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 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

2

using the wheelchair.” Id. The findings and recommendations notified plaintiff that any 

objections were to be filed within 30 days of service. Id. Plaintiff filed objections on 

September 11, 2024. Doc. 10.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this court has conducted a de 

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s objections, the 

court concludes that the findings and recommendations that this case be dismissed for failure to 

state a claim are supported by the record and proper analysis. However, as noted below, the court 

will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. 

In plaintiff’s objections, she argues her claim should not be dismissed because “[w]hen 

RN Lee failed to provide a proper working wheelchair with footrest (this is per policy) she ‘. . . 

omit[ted] to [perform] an act which [she] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of 

which complaint is made.’” Doc. 10 at 1 (quoting Preschooler II v. Clark County Sch. Bd. of 

Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, “[b]y not [performing] her legal duty to provide 

Plaintiff with a proper wheelchair, per policy[,] she caused Plaintiff to have a [second] surgery 

one week after a total hip replacement.” Id. at 1-2. However, Preschooler II relates to when a 

defendant can be said to be the cause of a plaintiff’s harm, rather than whether the elements of 

deliberate indifference have been met. See Preschooler II, 479F.3d at 1183 (holding that various 

school officials could be held liable as the cause of plaintiff’s constitutional injuries because they 

demonstrated disregard of their responsibilities in hiring, training, supervising, disciplining and 

reporting abuses committed by teacher). The claims in Preschooler II were brought under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the case did not address a deliberate indifference claim. 

See id. at 1177, 1178 n.4. Whether plaintiff adequately alleged that Nurse Lee caused plaintiff’s 

harm is not at issue here; rather, what is at issue is if plaintiff adequately alleged facts to support 

that Nurse Lee was deliberately indifferent in doing so, rather than merely negligent.

Plaintiff also states in her objections that “RN Lee did know and disregard the excessive 

risk to the Plaintiff’s health and safety. Id. at 2. She states that “RN L[ee] did show [deliberate] 

indifference because there was a ‘purposeful act[,]’ ‘a possible medical need’ and ‘harm caused 

Case 1:24-cv-00602-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 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

3

by the indifference.’” Id. (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006)). Despite 

plaintiff’s conclusory assertion in her objections that Nurse Lee knew of and disregarded the risk 

to plaintiff of using a wheelchair without a footrest, neither the complaint nor the objections 

provide any basis for the assertion. Plaintiff does not allege any facts that demonstrate that Nurse 

Lee was aware of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health should she be transported using a 

wheelchair without a footrest. Plaintiff also does not allege any facts that would indicate that 

Nurse Lee kept pushing the wheelchair despite knowledge that it would harm plaintiff. Plaintiff’s 

citation to Jett does not support her position. The applicable standard is not whether there is any 

purposeful act, but rather a purposeful act that shows indifference to a possible medical need. As 

Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support that Nurse Lee knew of the risk to plaintiff, and, through a 

purposeful act, disregarded such risk, plaintiff has failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference 

against Nurse Lee.

Finally, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the 

complaint without leave to amend. Id. at 2. The findings and recommendations state that 

“[although this is the Court’s first screening order, the Court does not recommend giving leave to 

amend because the allegations regarding the incident are clear, and based on those factual 

allegations, the incident does not establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs [and] 

leave to amend would be futile.” Doc. 9 at 5. 

Pro se complaints should be liberally construed and may be dismissed only if the plaintiff 

can prove no set of facts in support of his claim. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 

(9th Cir. 2017). Because plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts that would show that 

Nurse Lee was aware of plaintiff’s medical need and disregarded it, the court will dismiss the 

complaint with leave to amend. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, that complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned to this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is 

reminded that an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint. Ramirez v. Cty. of San 

Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (amended complaint supersedes a prior 

complaint and the prior complaint thereafter is treated as non-existent). In addition, the amended 

Case 1:24-cv-00602-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 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

4

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220. Thus, plaintiff must allege all facts in the first amended complaint concerning 

the alleged incident to support her claims for deliberate indifference under the Eighth

Amendment. Once plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the prior complaints no longer serve 

any function in the case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 20, 2024, Doc. 9, are 

adopted in part;

2. This complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable 

claim upon which relief may be granted; and

3. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service 

of this order;

4. Plaintiff is advised that if she fails to timely file an amended complaint, this case 

will be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00602-KES-EPG Document 11 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 4