# Castillo v. Borla

> District Court, N.D. California · July 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11103379

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** July 17, 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/11103379

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 GONZALO CASTILLO, Case No. 24-cv-01245-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL
AND PARTIAL SERVICE
v.
9
Re: Dkt. No. 11
10 EDWARD BORLA, et al.,
Defendants.
11

12
13 Gonzalo Castillo, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California,
14 filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court concluded that Mr.
15 Castillo’s original complaint failed to state any claim and dismissed with leave to amend as to
16 some defendants. Dkt. No. 10.
17 Mr. Castillo filed an amended complaint alleging claims against Defendants Lauritzen,
18 Bridgnell, Ottenbacher, and Posson. Dkt. No. 11 (“FAC”). For the reasons stated below, the Court
19 dismisses Mr. Castillo’s claims against Defendants Ottenbacher and Posson without leave to
20 amend. The Court orders Defendants Lauritzen and Bridgnell to respond to Mr. Castillo’s claims.
21 I. Background
22 Mr. Castillo provided a thorough factual background to his claims, see FAC, which the
23 Court reviewed in full.1 For purposes of this order, only the relevant portions of that background
24 will be discussed.
25 Mr. Castillo was treated by Defendant Lauritzen, an ophthalmologist, for vision problems
26

27
1 The Court appreciates Mr. Castillo’s thorough and clear summary of his experience. If it would
1 and eye pain. See generally id. This treatment included five surgeries on Mr. Castillo’s left eye
2 between February 24 and November 4, 2022. See FAC at 5–8. Each surgery made Mr. Castillo’s
3 eye worse rather than better. See id. Mr. Castillo represents that these repeated botched surgeries
4 nearly caused his left eye to die. See id. at 12.
5 During this time, Mr. Castillo also was being seen by his primary care physician,
6 Defendant Bridgnell.2 See id. After each surgery, Mr. Castillo updated Defendant Brignell as to
7 the results he was experiencing, including pain and partial blindness. See id. Defendant Brignell
8 informed Mr. Castillo that he was “not a specialist or ophthalmologist.” Id. at 8. On October 27,
9 2022, Mr. Castillo told Defendant Bridgnell “that defendant Lauritzen[] keeps making mistakes,”
10 and that he was “requesting a new ophthalmologist.” Id. The fifth surgery was performed on
11 November 4, 2022, one week after Mr. Castillo’s request for a new ophthalmologist. See id. Mr.
12 Castillo repeated his request for a new ophthalmologist on November 16, 2022, and Defendant
13 Bridgnell attempted to “convince” Mr. Castillo to continue being treated by Defendant Lauritzen.
14 See id. at 9. On December 1, 2022, Defendant Bridgnell confirmed that a new ophthalmologist had
15 been requested. See id. at 10–11.
16 On January 3, 2023, Mr. Castillo had his first visit with a new ophthalmologist. See id. at
17 11. The new ophthalmologist performed surgery on Mr. Castillo’s left eye on January 18, 2023, to
18 “try[] to save [the] left eye from dying.” Id.
19 II. Legal Standard
20 Federal courts must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
21 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must
22 identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim
23 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
24 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
25 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
26
27
1 III. Analysis
2 The claim against Defendant Lauritzen arises from the multiple unsuccessful surgeries
3 before by that Defendant. The claims against Defendant Bridgnell appear to arise from that
4 Defendant’s having allowed Defendant Lauritzen to continue treating Mr. Castillo. Mr. Castillo
5 does not identify any actions taken by Defendants Ottenbacher or Posson.
6 A. Defendants Ottenbacher and Posson
7 The Complaint states that Defendant Ottenbacher is an ophthalmologist at CTF but does
8 not indicate that Mr. Castillo had any interactions at all with Defendant Ottenbacher. See FAC at
9 1–3. In reviewing his original complaint, the Court advised Mr. Castillo that, “[w]ithout such
10 facts, Mr. Castillo has not stated any claim as to Defendant Ottenbacher.” Dkt. No. 10 at 6.
11 Because Mr. Castillo failed to remedy this defect in his amended complaint, Defendant
12 Ottenbacher is dismissed from this action.
13 Likewise, the Court informed Mr. Castillo that his initial complaint failed to state a claim
14 as to Defendant Posson because that defendant had been accused only of reviewing Mr. Castillo’s
15 health care grievances. See id. (citing cases). Mr. Castillo’s Amended Complaint did not identify
16 any direct action taken by Defendant Posson. See generally FAC. Defendant Posson therefore is
17 dismissed from this action.
18 B. Defendants Lauritzen and Bridgnell
19 Mr. Castillo states that Defendant Lauritzen performed five surgeries on his left eye,
20 botched each surgery, and nearly killed Mr. Castillo’s left eye. See FAC at 5–11. He alleges that
21 Defendant Bridgnell was aware of Defendant Lauritzen’s actions and failed to seek a new
22 ophthalmologist for Mr. Castillo, despite requests that he do so. See id.
23 “‘The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined
24 are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
25 (1994) (citation omitted). The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to “ensure that inmates
26 receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care,” and to “‘take reasonable measures to
27 guarantee the safety of the inmates.’” Id. A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when
1 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and (2) the prison
2 official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., the offending conduct was wanton, id.
3 (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297).
4 Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth
5 Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
6 97, 104 (1976). A determination of “deliberate indifference” involves an examination of two
7 elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s response
8 to that need. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other
9 grounds, WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). A
10 “serious” medical need exists if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further
11 significant injury or the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (citing Estelle, 429 U.S.
12 at 104).
13 A prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knows a prisoner faces a substantial risk of
14 serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer, 511
15 U.S. at 837. The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could
16 be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but “must also draw the inference.” Id. If a
17 prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated
18 the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d
19 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). Consequently, for deliberate indifference to be established, there must
20 exist both a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and harm resulting
21 therefrom. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. The deliberate indifference standard does not require
22 a showing that the prison official acted with an improper motive, such as an intent to harm; it is
23 enough that the official acted or failed to act despite knowledge of a substantial risk of serious
24 harm. Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 793 (9th Cir. 2019).
25 A claim of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to make out a violation of the
26 Eighth Amendment. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004).3 However,
27
1 where a medical provider follows a course of treatment that is “‘medically unacceptable under the
2 circumstances,’ and was chosen ‘in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner’s]
3 health,’” the prisoner may state an Eighth Amendment claim. See id. at 1058. Insistence on
4 performing a surgery which was contra-indicated, might meet this standard. But see Sanchez v.
5 Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that summary judgment for defendants was properly
6 granted because plaintiff’s evidence that a doctor told him surgery was necessary to treat his recurring
7 abscesses showed only a difference of opinion as to proper course of care where prison medical staff
8 treated his recurring abscesses with medicines and hot packs).
9 Here, Mr. Castillo alleges that Defendant Lauritzen performed five surgeries on his left eye in
10 the space of nine months, that each of Defendant Lauritzen’s surgeries made Mr. Castillo’s left eye
11 worse, and that the left eye nearly died because of these repeated botched surgeries. See FAC at 5–11.
12 Mr. Castillo’s allegations do not present the Court with an instance where a doctor made a single
13 mistake, but rather an instance where the doctor took at least five actions each of which are alleged to
14 have worsened the patient’s condition. Defendant Lauritzen’s continued performance of surgery on
15 Mr. Castillo’s eye may have been medically unacceptable under the circumstances. Mr. Castillo has
16 alleged enough for the Court to require Defendant Lauritzen to respond to the claims in the Complaint.
17 Mr. Castillo alleges that he made Defendant Bridgnell aware of the problems with Defendant
18 Lauritzen’s treatment and requested a new ophthalmologist. He alleges that Defendant Bridgnell did
19 not request a new ophthalmologist for several weeks, and allowed Defendant Lauritzen to perform a
20 fifth surgery on Mr. Castillo’s eye after Mr. Castillo had requested a different ophthalmologist. See
21 FAC at 8–10. Defendant Bridgnell’s failure promptly to respond to Mr. Castillo’s concerns, and his
22 allowance of a fifth surgery by a doctor who had already performed four unsuccessful surgeries, may
23 have been medically unacceptable. Mr. Castillo has alleged enough for the Court to require Defendant
24 Bridgnell to respond to the claims in the Complaint.
25 IV. CONCLUSION
26 1. Liberally construed, the amended complaint states an Eighth Amendment
27 deliberate indifference claim against defendants Lauritzen and Bridgnell. All other claims and
1 2. The Court orders service of the amended complaint on defendants Lauritzen and
2 Bridgnell and orders them to respond to Mr. Castillo’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
3 claim. Service on defendants Lauritzen and Bridgnell shall proceed under the California
4 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) E-Service Program for civil rights
5 cases from prisoners in CDCR custody. In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to
6 serve on CDCR via email the following documents: The amended complaint and exhibits thereto
7 (Dkt. No. 11), this order of service, a CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons.
8 The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Mr. Castillo.
9 3. No later than forty (40) days after service of this order via email on CDCR, CDCR
10 shall provide the Court a Completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the Court
11 whether all defendants will be waiving service of process without the need for service by the
12 United States Marshal Service (“USMS”), or whether any defendant declined to waive service or
13 could not be reached.
14 4. CDCR shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the
15 California Attorney General’s Office which, within twenty-one (21) days, shall file with the
16 Court a waiver of service of process for each defendant who is waiving service.
17 5. If any defendant does not waive service, then upon receipt of the CDCR Report of
18 E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare a USM-285 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS
19 the completed USM-285 forms and copies of this order, the summons, and the operative complaint
20 for service upon the non-waiving defendant. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of
21 the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver.
22 6. No later than ninety (90) days from the filing date of this order, defendants shall
23 file one comprehensive motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with
24 respect to the Amended Complaint. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by
25 adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
26 of Civil Procedure. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a separate
27 Rand notice so that Mr. Castillo will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of
1 requirement set out in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), must be served
2 concurrently with motion for summary judgment). Defendants are advised that summary judgment
3 cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.
4 7. If any defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary
5 judgment, he or she shall so inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is
6 due. Information regarding the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Program is available on the
7 website for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
8 8. Mr. Castillo’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court and
9 served on defendants no later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date defendants’ motion is
10 filed. Mr. Castillo is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex
11 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment must come forward
12 with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim).
13 9. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after Mr.
14 Castillo’s opposition is filed.
15 10. All communications by Mr. Castillo with the Court must be served on defendants
16 or defendants’ counsel once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document
17 to defendants or defendants’ counsel.
18 11. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
19 No further court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) is required before the
20 parties may conduct discovery. Mr. Castillo is advised to read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
21 37, which requires each party to “in good faith confer[] or attempt[] to confer with” the opposing
22 party regarding a discovery dispute, before seeking court action to resolve such a dispute.
23 12. It is Mr. Castillo’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Mr. Castillo must keep the
24 Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice
25 of Change of Address.” He also must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure
26 to do so will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule
27 of Civil Procedure 41(b).
] remain in this action.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: July 17, 2025
May
5
P. Casey Pitt
6 United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
1]
as 12

«14

15
16

Oo
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11103379. Public record. Not legal advice.