Finley

1

2

3

4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

8 JAMES D. FINLEY, 127441, Case No. 25-cv-06754-CRB (PR)

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

10 v. LEAVE TO AMEND

11 CALIFORNIA TREATMENT FACILITY, et al.,

12 Defendant(s).

13 While plaintiff was in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

14 Rehabilitation (CDCR) and incarcerated at its Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,

15 California (CTF), he filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that CTF, California

16 Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS), LVN Catita Fraide and Does 1-10 have been

17 deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to follow medical orders and to

18 provide timely medical care, and/or by failing/refusing to properly respond to a medical

19 emergency. He seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

20 Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to the custody of the Arizona Department of

21 Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (ADCRR) and is currently incarcerated at its Arizona State

22 Prison Complex in Yuma, Arizona (ASPC Yuma). In view of plaintiff’s transfer to the custody of

23 ADCRR, his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are dismissed as moot and this action will

24 be limited to his claims for damages.1

25

1 When a prisoner is released from prison or transferred to another prison, and there is no

26

reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that he will again be subjected to the prison

conditions from which he seeks declaratory/injunctive relief, as is the case here, the prisoner’s

27

claims for declaratory/injunctive relief may be dismissed as moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d

1 DISCUSSION

2 A. Standard of Review

3 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

4 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

5 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of

6 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief

7 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.

8 § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

9 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

10 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a

11 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged

12 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.

13 42, 48 (1988).

14 B. Legal Claims

15 Plaintiff alleges that on July 21, 2024, he suffered a “serious injury” to his left knee while

16 playing softball at CTF Central Yard and was taken to Natividad Medical Center. Compl. (ECF

17 No. 1) at 4. Dr. Nicholas George examined plaintiff at Natividad and expressed concern for a

18 possible “ACL/MCL/meniscus injury” and ordered “an MRI, brace, and rest.” Id. But despite

19 receiving these recommendations on July 22, 2024, plaintiff alleges that “CTF and CCHCS

20 medical staff failed to provide the MRI until September 9, 2024—a 50-day delay—and did not

21 provide treatment, brace, or follow-up care.” Id.

22 Plaintiff further alleges that on October 16, 2024, he informed LVN Catita Fraide of

23 “severe swelling in his leg” and explained that his orthopedic doctor had advised him to “seek care

24 if such symptoms occurred.” Id. But Fraide “mocked” him, stating, “You cry babies do this all

25 the time,” told him to “submit a medical form” to be seen, and “walked away after [p]laintiff

26 declared “‘man down.’” Id. “Several minutes later,” another nurse “activated the emergency

27 alarm” and plaintiff was sent to “CTF Triage,” where Dr. Rios “referred [plaintiff] to Natividad

1 his left leg” and a “pulmonary embolism in his right lung.” Id. at 4-5. According to plaintiff, “he

2 likely would have suffered a stroke, heart attack, or death” if he had followed Fraide’s

3 instructions. Id. at 5.

4 Plaintiff claims CTF, CCHCS, Fraide and Does 1-10 were deliberately indifferent to his

5 serious medical needs by failing to follow medical orders and to provide timely medical care, and/

6 or by failing/refusing to properly respond to a medical emergency.

7 Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if they are “deliberate[ly] indifferen[t] to a

8 prisoner’s “serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A medical need

9 is serious if failure to treat it will result in “significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton

10 infliction of pain.” Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citation and

11 internal quotations omitted). A prison official is “deliberately indifferent” to that need if he

12 “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

13 837 (1994). The prison official must not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could

14 be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id.

15 If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the official did not violate

16 the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d

17 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).

18 It is not enough that a prisoner-patient disagrees with prison medical authorities regarding

19 treatment. See Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981). To establish deliberate

20 indifference on a claim involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner-

21 plaintiff must show that the course of treatment the prison doctor(s) chose was medically

22 unacceptable under the circumstances and that he or she chose this course of treatment in

23 conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

24 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). A claim of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to make out a

25 violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1060.

26 Liberally construed, plaintiff’s allegations that CTF and CCHCS medical staff failed to

27 provide him the doctor-ordered MRI until September 9, 2024—a 50-day delay—and did not

1 recommendations on July 22, 2024, suggest an arguably cognizable § 1983 claim for damages for

2 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. But plaintiff does not identify and name as a

3 defendant in this action any individual CTF and/or CCHCS medical staff or connect them to his

4 allegations of wrongdoing. Plaintiff only names CTF and CCHCS but he cannot proceed with a

5 claim for damages under § 1983 against either CDCR entity because they are both immune from

6 suit for damages under the Eleventh Amendment. See Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs., 554 F.3d

7 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (state agencies such as CDCR entitled to 11th Amendment immunity);

8 Jones v. Dep’t of Corrs. & Reh., No. 25-cv-3157-CSK P, 2025 WL 3140680, at *2 (E.D. Cal.

9 Nov. 10, 2025) (CCHCS part of CDCR entitled to 11th Amendment immunity); Diaz v. CDCR,

10 No. 17-cv-0235-KJN P, 2017 WL 1079947, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) (CDCR, CCHCS and

11 state prison entitled to 11th Amendment immunity). In order to proceed with a claim for damages

12 under § 1983, plaintiff must identify and name individual CTF and CCHCS medical staff and

13 connect them to his allegations of wrongdoing and show that each individual defendant’s

14 deliberate indifference was the “actual and proximate cause” of the deprivation of plaintiff’s

15 Eighth Amendment rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff will be

16 provided with an opportunity to do so, if possible.

17 Plaintiff’s allegations that Fraide told him to submit a medical care request form when he

18 informed her of severe swelling and walked away after he declared “man down” are regrettable

19 but not enough to state a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim. Deliberate

20 indifference requires that Freide “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a

21 substantial risk of serious harm exists,” and that Freide “also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511

22 U.S. at 837. Plaintiff’s suggestion that Freide should have been aware of the risk rather than

23 assume he was malingering or exaggerating his condition is not enough for an Eighth Amendment

24 violation, no matter how severe the risk is. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188. Plaintiff will be

25 provided with an opportunity to allege a deliberate indifference claim against Freide, if possible.

26 CONCLUSION

27 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as indicated

] the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words FIRST AMENDED

2 |} COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated

3 || time will result in the dismissal of this action.

4 Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint and

5 all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the amended complaint will not be

6 || considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

7 IT ISSO ORDERED.

8 Dated: May 6, 2026

9 2A

CHARLES R. BREYER

10 United States District Judge

1]

12

15

16

17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28