The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 JHRIMACK WILES, 1:25-cv-00455-JLT-EPG (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
v. TO REVISE DOCKET AND CASE
13 CAPTION
PHILAMORE,
14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
Defendant. RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
15 BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
16
(ECF No. 8)
17
OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
18 THIRTY (30) DAYS
19 Plaintiff Jhrimack Wiles is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
20 in this civil rights action. (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 8). Plaintiff’s initial complaint, filed on April 21,
21 2025, alleged that certain Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
22 concerning his low blood sugar and broken ankle. (ECF No. 1).
23 On September 18, 2025, the Court screened Plaintiff’s initial complaint and concluded
24 that he failed to state any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 7). However, the Court gave Plaintiff
25 thirty days to file an amended complaint or to notify the Court that he wanted to stand on his
26 complaint. (Id. at 8).
27 On October 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, which is now before the
28 Court for screening. (ECF No. 8). For the reasons given below, the Court will recommend that
1 this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
2 granted.
3 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
4 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
5 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
6 The Court must dismiss a complaint, or a portion of it, if the prisoner has raised claims that are
7 frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
9 (2). Additionally, as Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court may dismiss a claim
10 on these same bases under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). (ECF No. 5).
11 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
12 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
13 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
14 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
15 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient
16 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.
17 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting
18 this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts
19 “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d
20 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a
21 plaintiff’s legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
22 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal
23 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that
24 pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).
25 II. INITIAL SCREENING ORDER1
26 Plaintiff’s initial complaint named the following Defendants: (1) Warden Fransico
27
28 1 For readability, minor alterations, such as changing capitalization, have been made to some of
Plaintiff’s quotations without indicating each change.
1 Jquintant, (2) PA Escratini, (3) RN Bugarin Pubirosa, (4) PA Hohzapple, and (5) “Mr. Franks.”
2 Plaintiff alleged that, on or about February 20, 2022, his blood sugar was low, so he
3 asked Mrs. Philamore—who was not named as a defendant at that time—for some Ensure.
4 Philamore responded, “No Ensure is not for you” and walked away. Philamore then checked
5 Plaintiff’s sugar level and “it was low (35).” Philamore emailed PA Escratini, who instructed
6 Philamore to check on Plaintiff every day, once an hour, for 10 days. However, Philamore did
7 not follow Escratini’s order and checked on Plaintiff “one (1) time out of 80 (which equals 8
8 times a day for 10 days).”
9 The next morning Escratini checked Plaintiff’s sugar level which “was at 28.” Escratini
10 gave Plaintiff two Ensures, and Plaintiff’s blood sugar “went back up to a 35.” Escratini gave
11 Plaintiff two more Ensures and promised to come back after a meeting, but Plaintiff did not see
12 Escratini again until after Plaintiff fell and broke his leg on or about February 26.2
13 The complaint thereafter describes the injury to Plaintiff’s ankle and subsequent
14 interactions with Defendants, which are not relevant here.
15 At screening, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claim.
16 Pertinent here, the Court provided Plaintiff with the standards for a claim of deliberate
17 indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. (ECF No. 7, p. 5). The Court noted that
18 Philamore was not a defendant. (Id. at 6). And as to Escratini, it concluded that “Plaintiff’s
19 allegations show[ed] that Defendant Escratini attended to Plaintiff’s needs,” that Plaintiff failed
20 to allege that Escratini “purposefully ignored Plaintiff’s needs,” and that Plaintiff did not
21 “allege he was harmed by Defendant Escratini’s failure to return when he said he would.” (Id.
22 at 6). Despite these deficiencies, the Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint,
23 instructing Plaintiff that any amended complaint
24 should describe specific facts regarding his medical condition to support his
belief that he has a serious medical need, as well as what any medical
25 professional knew about that condition, and anything they did or failed to do to
26
27 2 In his complaint, Plaintiff lists the date of his fall as “2-26-2021.” However, Plaintiff alleges this
incident occurred sometime after his low blood sugar levels on February 20, 2022. Based on the context
28 of Plaintiff’s allegations and the attachments to Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that Plaintiff intended
the year to be 2022.
treat that condition. Plaintiff also should describe facts as to the actions of each
1
individual Defendant named in his amended complaint.
2 (Id. at 7).
3 Further, the Court advised him that “an amended complaint supersedes the original
4 complaint . . . and must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded
5 pleading.” (Id.) (citation omitted).
6 III. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
7 Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on October 3, 2025, lists Philamore as the sole
8 Defendant.3 (ECF No. 8). He claims the denial of “right to medical care” and his only
9 allegations are as follows: “Philamore was ordered by a superior to check on me due to my low
10 blood sugar that was known and documented. Due to his failure to check on me, I fe[l]l out and
11 broke my leg.” (ECF No. 8, p. 4).
12 Plaintiff asks for $2.5 million in monetary damages and any other relief that the Court
13 deems just and appropriate.
14 IV. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
15 A. Bivens
16 Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
17 individuals may sue Federal officials for damages for constitutional violations under certain
18 circumstances. A Bivens action is the Federal analog to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit brought
19 against state officials. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254 n.2 (2006). “The basis of a Bivens
20 action is some illegal or inappropriate conduct on the part of a federal official or agent that
21 violates a clearly established constitutional right.” Balser v. Department of Justice, Office of
22 U.S. Trustee, 327 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003). “To state a claim for relief under Bivens, a
23 plaintiff must allege that a federal officer deprived him of his constitutional rights.” Serra v.
24 Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). A Bivens claim is only
25 available against officers in their individual capacities. Morgan v. U.S., 323 F.3d 776, 780 n.3
26
27
3 Because Plaintiff omits the previous Defendants from the amended complaint, the Court will direct the
28 Clerk of Court to revise the docket to terminate them, add Philamore, and likewise revise the case
caption.
1 (9th Cir. 2003). “A plaintiff must plead more than a merely negligent act by a federal official in
2 order to state a colorable claim under Bivens.” O’Neal v. Eu, 866 F.2d 314, 314 (9th Cir. 1988).
3 Further, not all constitutional cases against Federal officers for damages may proceed as
4 Bivens claims. In Egbert v. Boule, the United States Supreme Court explained the following
5 steps for evaluating a constitutional claim for damages against a Federal official:
6 To inform a court’s analysis of a proposed Bivens claim, our cases have framed
the inquiry as proceeding in two steps. First, we ask whether the case presents “a
7 new Bivens context”—i.e., is it “meaningful[ly]” different from the three cases
in which the Court has implied a damages action. Second, if a claim arises in a
8
new context, a Bivens remedy is unavailable if there are “special factors”
9 indicating that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to
“weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” If there
10 is even a single “reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new context,” a
11 court may not recognize a Bivens remedy.
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 492 (2022) (citations omitted).4
12
B. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
13
Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a claim against Philamore for deliberate indifference to his
14
serious medical needs.
15
“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an
16
inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
17
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). This requires
18
Plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a
19
prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton
20
infliction of pain,’” and (2) that “the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately
21
indifferent.” Id. (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992)),
22
overruled on other grounds by WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en
23
banc).
24
Deliberate indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of
25
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
26
27
4 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint by determining whether Plaintiff has alleged sufficient
28 factual allegations under the relevant legal standards for deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs, without evaluating whether a Bivens remedy is available.
1 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Deliberate indifference can be established “by
2 showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need
3 and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (citation omitted). Civil
4 recklessness (failure “to act in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known
5 or so obvious that it should be known”) is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment
6 violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836-37 & n.5 (1994) (citations omitted).
7 A difference of opinion between an inmate and prison medical personnel—or between
8 medical professionals—regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment is not enough to
9 establish a deliberate indifference claim. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
10 Additionally, “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a
11 medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth
12 Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because
13 the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. “To show deliberate indifference, the
14 plaintiff must show that the course of treatment the [official] chose was medically unacceptable
15 under the circumstances and that the [official] chose this course in conscious disregard of an
16 excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.” Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 786 (9th Cir.
17 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
18 Here, Plaintiff’s only allegation is that “Philamore was ordered by a superior to check
19 on [him] due to [his] low blood sugar that was known and documented. Due to his failure to
20 check on [him], [Plaintiff] fe[l]l out and broke [his] leg.” (ECF No. 8, p. 4).
21 These allegations are insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff’s statement that he had low
22 blood sugar, without more, is insufficient to show a serious medical need.
23 Assuming that a serious medical need was at issue, Plaintiff still fails to show that
24 Philamore’s failure to check on Plaintiff was a purposeful act constituting deliberate
25 indifference, rather than mere negligence.
26 Plaintiff’s complaint also does not allege sufficient facts to show that Plaintiff suffered
27 harm due to Philamore’s actions or inaction. Plaintiff states that he fell due to Philamore’s
28 failure to check on him, but does not include any further factual allegations to support this
1 conclusion.
2 Without facts showing that Philamore knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
3 Plaintiff’s health and safety and was responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries, Plaintiff fails to state a
4 claim against Philamore for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
5 V. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6 Based on the forgoing, the Court will recommend that this case be dismissed with
7 prejudice. Notably, in its initial screening order, the Court identified the relevant legal
8 standards and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. The Court also
9 advised Plaintiff to describe in any amended complaint “what any medical professional knew
10 about [Plaintiff’s] condition, and anything they did or failed to do to treat that condition,” with
11 Plaintiff also needing to “describe facts as to the actions of each individual Defendant named in
12 his amended complaint.” (ECF No. 7, p. 7). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint with the
13 benefit of these legal standards and instructions, and the Court finds that further amendment
14 would be futile. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2017)
15 (noting that “a district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment
16 would be futile”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
18 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate (1) Warden Fransico Jquintant, (2) PA
19 Escratini, (3) RN Bugarin Pubirosa, (4) PA Hohzapple, and (5) Franks as Defendants on
20 the docket.
21 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to add Philamore as a Defendant.
22 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to revise the case caption from “Wiles v. Jquintant et al.”
23 to “Wiles v. Philamore.”
24 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:
25 1. This action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
26 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty
1 || (30) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file
2 || written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
3 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any objections shall be limited to no
4 || more than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits.
5 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in
6 || the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)
7 || (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 | Dated: _ December 23, 2025 [Je heey —
11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28