CDCR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DENNIS THOMAS, No. 2:26-cv-0143 CSK P

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v.

14 CDCR, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This

19 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C.

23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in

24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct

25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and

26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments

27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These

28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the

1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.

2 § 1915(b)(2).

3 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

4 I. SCREENING STANDARDS

5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

7 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally

8 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

12 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an

13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

14 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

15 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

16 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

17 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably

18 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at

19 1227.

20 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain

21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

22 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

23 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

24 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a

25 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations

26 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.

27 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the

28 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v.

1 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal

2 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as

3 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the

4 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

5 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

6 II. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

7 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal

8 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under

9 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d

10 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the

11 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal

12 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.

13 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44

14 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable

15 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679

16 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the

17 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including

18 by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision,

19 or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,

20 1208 (9th Cir. 2011).

21 III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

22 Plaintiff alleges he has been subjected to “careless and reckless endangerment” since a

23 November 2023 MRI revealed a serious need for medical treatment for his left shoulder. (ECF

24 No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges this was ignored by “CDCR medical staff for 2-1/2 years,” leaving

25 plaintiff in great pain. (Id.) Plaintiff claims doctors at High Desert State Prison were well aware

26 of plaintiff’s injuries, but instead of treating him, plaintiff was transferred to Pelican Bay State

27 Prison in June 2025, where doctors have now recognized the serious need for surgery and

28 scheduled it. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks money damages. (Id. at 4.)

1 IV. DISCUSSION

2 In his complaint plaintiff has named the “CDCR” (California Department of Corrections

3 and Rehabilitation) as one of the defendants. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional

4 bar to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency

5 consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781

6 (1978) (per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the

7 instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims

8 against the CDCR are frivolous and must be dismissed.

9 Plaintiff also names “medical staff” at High Desert State Prison as defendants. (ECF No.

10 1 at 2.) Plaintiff is advised that he must name individuals who were deliberately indifferent to

11 plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Simply alleging that “medical staff” violated plaintiff’s rights

12 or “ignored” plaintiff’s shoulder injury is insufficient. Plaintiff is provided with the following

13 standards that govern Eighth Amendment medical claims.

14 A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual

15 punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of

16 “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

17 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). Deliberate indifference may be

18 shown by the denial, delay, or intentional interference with medical treatment or by the way in

19 which medical care is provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).

20 The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious medical

21 need’ by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further

22 significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ ” and (2) “the defendant's

23 response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. A defendant does not

24 act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the defendant “knows of and disregards an

25 excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).

26 “Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of

27 action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle v.

28 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)).

1 Further, differences of opinion between medical professionals or between an inmate and

2 his doctor about the appropriate medical care does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

3 Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)). Rather, a plaintiff is required to show that

4 the course of treatment selected was “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and that

5 the defendant “chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.”

6 Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). In other words, so long as a defendant

7 decides on a medically acceptable course of treatment, his actions will not be considered

8 deliberately indifferent even if an alternative course of treatment was available. Id.

9 V. LEAVE TO AMEND

10 The Court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is

11 unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The

12 Court determines that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement against a specific

13 individual as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible

14 pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and

15 succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must

16 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which an individual defendant engaged

17 in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of

18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. However, the Court grants plaintiff

19 leave to file an amended complaint.

20 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions

21 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See e.g.,

22 West, 487 U.S. at 48. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

23 defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no liability

24 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s

25 actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167

26 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil

27 rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

28 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

1 || make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

2 || complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists

3 || because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez

4 | v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint

5 || supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation

6 || omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any

7 || function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim

8 | and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

9 | VI. CONCLUSION

10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

12 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff

13 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

14 | § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

15 || Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

16 || herewith.

17 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

18 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached

19 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

20 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

21 b. An original of the Amended Complaint.

22 || Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

23 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must

24 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”

25 || Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of

26 || this action. ( q i S

27 || Dated: February 3, 2026 CHI SOO EIM

28 /Mthom0143.14n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DENNIS THOMAS, No. 2:26-cv-0143 CSK P

11

Plaintiff,

12

v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

13

CDCR, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

16

17 Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order

18 filed on ______________ (date).

19

20 Amended Complaint

21 (Check this box if submitting an Amended Complaint)

22 DATED:

________________________________

23 Plaintiff

24

25

26

27

28