# (PC) Sanchez v. Doe

> District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11050451

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 13, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11050451

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ, No. 2:24-cv-01681-EFB (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 FLOOR OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
18 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma
19 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court will grant the in forma pauperis application and
20 screen the complaint.
21 Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
22 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).
23 Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect
24 and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C.
25 § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
26 ////
27 ////
28 ////
1 Screening Standards
2 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
3 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
4 § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
5 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
6 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
7 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
8 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)
9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and
10 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
11 defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
12 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
13 While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,
14 its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
15 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
16 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked
17 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
18 action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
19 a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
20 678.
21 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.
22 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
23 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
24 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a
25 claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.
26 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
27 plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
28 ////
1 Screening Order
2 Plaintiff alleges that, on September 3, 2023, he slipped on a puddle caused by a roof leak
3 while housed at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). ECF No. 1 at 7. “Correctional officers” had
4 known of the leak for a year but the roof had not been fixed, nor had any signs been placed
5 warning of the hazard. Id. Plaintiff fell and suffered visible injuries. Id. He was taken to Banner
6 Lassen Medical Center, but the nurses and doctor there refused to treat him. Id. at 8. They
7 should have known that plaintiff, a person with adrenal insufficiency, does not take trauma well.
8 Id. But they made plaintiff wait outside, gave him no test, and provided only a shot of Toradol
9 before releasing plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff was ill for the following 20 days, when he was returned to
10 the hospital with an adrenal crisis and hospitalized for a week. Id. He sues five unidentified
11 correctional staff for violating his Eighth Amendment rights and committing gross negligence in
12 connection with his fall and one unidentified doctor at Banner Lassen for violating his Eighth
13 Amendment rights and discriminating against him in connection with his treatment.
14 Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against correctional staff at
15 HDSP (John Doe Nos. 1-5). In the Ninth Circuit, slip-and-fall incidents in prisons generally fail
16 to state cognizable constitutional claims. Julian v. Valley State Prison, No. 1:23-cv-00013-SAB
17 (PC), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85043, *5 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2023). A slip-and-fall incident may
18 give rise to a cognizable claim only if accompanied by exacerbating conditions—conditions that
19 pose a serious, unavoidable threat to the plaintiff’s safety. Id. Thus, courts routinely dismiss slip-
20 and-fall cases brought by prisoners as alleging mere negligence, even where defendants knew of
21 and failed to remedy a hazardous condition on the floor. Collier v. Garcia, No. 17-CV-05841
22 LHK (PR), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16909, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018) (collecting cases). See
23 generally, Murguia v. Langdon, 61 F.4th 1096, 1111 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Deliberate indifference is a
24 stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious
25 consequence of his action. This standard is higher than gross negligence and requires a culpable
26 mental state.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged
27 exacerbating conditions that would show deliberate indifference on the part of correctional staff,
28 rather than gross negligence.
1 Plaintiff has also failed to state a cognizable state-law negligence claim, because the
2 complaint does not allege that plaintiff complied with California’s Tort Claims Act, which
3 requires that any state tort claims against a public entity or its employees be presented to the state
4 Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board within six months of the accrual of the
5 cause of action. California v. Super. Ct. (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1245 (2004); Mangold v. Cal.
6 Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995).
7 Plaintiff’s claim for discrimination against his treating physician at Banner Lassen (John
8 Doe No. 6) is also not cognizable as currently plead. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal
9 Protection Clause is “essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated
10 alike.” City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). To state an
11 equal protection claim that is not based on membership in one of certain protected classes (e.g.,
12 race, sex), a plaintiff must allege that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated
13 differently without a rational basis for the difference in treatment. Village of Willowbrook v.
14 Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Such claims are often referred to as “class of one” equal
15 protection claims. Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 601-02 (2008)
16 (exempting certain discretionary government decisions from “class of one” equal protection
17 challenges). (Plaintiff does not allege that he was intentionally discriminated against based on his
18 membership in a protected class, a different type of equal protection claim. See City of Cleburne,
19 473 U.S. at 440-41. The complaint lacks facts alleging that the John Doe No. 6 lacked a rational
20 basis for having plaintiff wait outside or for his or her treatment decisions.
21 Plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against John Doe
22 No. 6 for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
23 Amendment. The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment
24 and from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th
25 Cir. 2006). To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on indifference to medical
26 needs, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he had a serious medical need and (2) the defendant’s
27 response to that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.
28 2006); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the
1 failure to treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and
2 wanton infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. To act with deliberate indifference, a prison
3 official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
4 risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
5 825, 837 (1994).
6 Thus, a defendant will be liable for violating the Eighth Amendment if he knows that
7 plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
8 reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. “[I]t is enough that the official acted or failed to act
9 despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at 842. Plaintiff has sufficiently
10 alleged that he suffered from a serious medical need (adrenal insufficiency with trauma) and that
11 John Doe No. 6 was deliberately indifferent to that need. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54-58
12 (1988) (finding that an outside doctor is a state actor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the doctor is
13 employed by the state - whether on payroll or via contract - to treat an inmate); Rawson v.
14 Recovery Innovations, Inc., 975 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2020).
15 However, “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10, a caption to a complaint must include the names
16 of all parties.” Culp v. Williams, No. 10-cv-00886-CMA-CBS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46601,
17 2011 WL 1597686, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 27, 2011), aff'd, 456 F. App'x 718 (10th Cir. 2012). The
18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not explicitly allow the naming of fictitious or anonymous
19 parties in a lawsuit,” thus, “an action may be dismissed if the defendant is not sufficiently
20 identified to permit service of process.” Id. (quotation omitted).
21 Plaintiff must use administrative processes available at his institution to obtain the name
22 of John Doe No. 6 (and any other defendant he wishes to include in an amended complaint). The
23 court cannot order service on an unknown party. Accordingly, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s
24 complaint with leave to file an amended complaint identifying at least one defendant. If plaintiff
25 cannot determine the identity of any defendant, he must inform the court of what efforts he has
26 undertaken to do so.
27 ////
28 ////
1 Leave to Amend
2 Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies identified above.
3 He is cautioned that any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who
4 personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. Johnson
5 v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a
6 constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is
7 legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). Plaintiff may also include any
8 allegations based on state law that are so closely related to his federal allegations that “they form
9 the same case or controversy.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
10 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants.
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
12 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See
13 George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against
14 multiple defendants. Id.
15 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself
16 without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended
17 complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the
18 earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114
19 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter
20 being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
21 1967)).
22 Conclusion
23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
24 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
25 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected
26 in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed
27 concurrently herewith.
28 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days
1 | of service of this order. If plaintiff cannot determine the identity of any defendant within that
2 || time period, he must file with the court a notice describing the efforts he has made to do so, also
3 || within 30 days of service of this order.
4 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action.
Datu EBL
6 || Dated: May 12, 2025 LAP ltt FeLAEY?
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11050451. Public record. Not legal advice.