# CDCR

> District Court, E.D. California · February 3, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370261

## Case

- **Full name:** Dennis Thomas v. CDCR, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 3, 2026
- **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/11370261

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11370261. Public record. Not legal advice.